Ce document est un miroir du site www.loosechangeguide.com malheureusement disparu, le nom de domaine n'ayant pas été renouvelé. Elle a été restaurée à partir de web.archive.org.
www.loosechangeguide.com est une mine d'informations permettant de décrypter la thèse conspirationniste des attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Il répond point par point aux arguments exposés par Loose Change 2. La reproduction de ce site a pour objectif d'en assurer la pérennité.
Les textes surlignés en jaune, et parfois précédées du repère temporel HH:MM:SS, sont la transcription de l'audio de Loose Change 2, à laquelle contre-argumente l'auteur de www.loosechangeguide.com.
Les textes surlignés en bleu sont des extraits de documents cités par l'auteur.
And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories
The information on this page was researched and put together by Mark Roberts.
Sections of this document :
- Section I : Introduction, The First Events (this page)
- Section II : AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon
- Section III : The World Trade Center
- Section IV : United Flight 93
- Section V : Flight Recorders, Cell Phone Calls, Miscellany
- Section VI : Appendices
May, 2006
This guide is meant to be a companion to, not a substitute for, the video itself. For one thing, I had to greatly reduce the resolution of the video screenshots in this document in order to keep the file size manageable.
Fittingly, this is the second edition of this critique. The first was done in six long nights, because I wanted to hand copies of it to the creators of "Loose Change" when they were in New York to protest the premiere of the movie "United 93" on April 25, 2006. Because that version was written in the heat of the moment, it contained more obvious anger and sarcasm directed towards the creators of Loose Change. That anger hasn't abated, but cooler heads than mine have convinced me that cutting down on the "cutting" remarks should help me get my points across more effectively.
The text transcription of the video is not mine, and I have not corrected typos in it. With a few small exceptions, it is a verbatim transcription of "Loose Change's" narration.
I have incorporated additions and deletions suggested by several people who read the first draft. I am especially indebted to Mike at 911myths.com, who took the time, unsolicited, to suggest additions and corrections. I think his site is by far the best source on the internet for evenhanded examination of controversial issues surrounding the terrorist attacks.
The comments and opinions in red on these pages are mine only and do not represent the opinions of the creators of "Loose Change" or Louder Than Words, LLC. I am not supported by, and do not represent, any group or organization, and I have no political or financial interest in these matters.
I put this document together for several reasons:
1. To promote understanding of the facts about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and to discourage relying on rumor and conjecture when searching for the "truth."
2. Because I believe that "Loose Change" is an influential introduction for many people to 9/11 conspiracy issues.
3. To encourage respect for the victims, living and dead, of the 9/11 attacks.
My comments and analysis are mostly restricted to the issues raised by the video. At the end of this document are links to websites with in-depth analyses of 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as links to the "official" version of events and to other analyses by experts and laymen.
Also at the end of this document is a summary of the numbers and types of errors that I found in "Loose Change." Not every error was noted or commented on in the transcription section, nor does every comment I made there count as an "error" in my tallies. And no, I didn't count typos in the transcript as errors.
To keep you from jumping to the end, I'll tell you now that in this hour and twenty-minute video I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like "1+1 = 3"). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs. And that's only counting errors of commission. The errors of omission are more serious. (Note: I have turned up more errors while doing this update, but I find it too depressing to count them.)
Abbreviations: LC is "Loose Change," "CT" is "Conspiracy Theorist" and "CD" is "Controlled Demolition."
Subject Index
Air Defense :
Aircraft :
Conspiracy Theorists :
Controlled Demolition, Inc. :
Flight 93 :
Foreknowledge :
Government :
Pentagon :
Phone Calls :
Terrorists :
WTC :
WTC 7 :
Images from "Loose Change" are used with permission :
Loose Change 2 begins with a dedication :
I hope you'll judge for yourself how the video portrays the victims of 9/11 :
The "when and where" are not given for most of the quotes in the video. Many of the audio quotes are unattributed. Context and attribution are essential to understanding if the quote is relevant to the issue being discussed. Why leave this information out?
From here on, all text in this color is a transcription of the audio from Loose Change 2 and Video time codes are like this : HH:MM:SS.
My comments are in this color you are reading now. Third-party comments and quotes are in this color.
My comments are sparse at first because the video takes a while to get to subjects that have a clear connection to 9/11.
March 13th, 1962 Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presents a proposal to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, named "Operation Northwoods."
The document proposed staging terrorist attacks in and around Guantanamo Bay, to provide a pretext for military intervention in Cuba. The plans included:
- Starting rumors about Cuba using clandestine radio.
- Landing friendly Cubans inside the base to stage attacks.
- Starting riots at the main gate.
- Blowing up ammunition inside the base, starting fires.
- Sabotaging aircrafts and ships on the base.
- Bombing the base with mortar shells.
- Sinking a ship outside the entrance, staging funerals for mock victims.
- Staging a terror campaign in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC.
- And finally, destroying a drone aircraft, over Cuban waters.
The passengers, federal agents in reality, would allegedly be college students on vacation.
A plane at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and numbered as a duplicate of a registered civil aircraft belonging to a CIA front in Miami. The duplicate would be substituted for the real plane and loaded with the passengers. The real plane would be converted into a drone. The two planes would randezvous south of Florida. The passenger laden plane would land at Eglin Air Force Base to evacuate its passengers and return to its original status. The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
Note that no one was to be killed in the fake plane scheme. (Thanks CurtC.) We know about this idea because the document has been declassified. The idea was rejected, of course.- Starting rumors about Cuba using clandestine radio.
- Landing friendly Cubans inside the base to stage attacks.
- Starting riots at the main gate.
- Blowing up ammunition inside the base, starting fires.
- Sabotaging aircrafts and ships on the base.
- Bombing the base with mortar shells.
- Sinking a ship outside the entrance, staging funerals for mock victims.
- Staging a terror campaign in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC.
- And finally, destroying a drone aircraft, over Cuban waters.
The passengers, federal agents in reality, would allegedly be college students on vacation.
A plane at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and numbered as a duplicate of a registered civil aircraft belonging to a CIA front in Miami. The duplicate would be substituted for the real plane and loaded with the passengers. The real plane would be converted into a drone. The two planes would randezvous south of Florida. The passenger laden plane would land at Eglin Air Force Base to evacuate its passengers and return to its original status. The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
The plan was rejected by McNamara, and President John F. Kennedy personally removes Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While "Operation Northwoods" has provided the raw material for an entire cottage industry of 9/11 conspiracy theories, to my knowledge no one has demonstrated the slightest connection to 9/11 itself. I mentioned this to a conspiracy theorist recently, and he said "Well, the CIA killed JFK, and George W. Bush's father was head of the CIA." I had to remind him that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and George H.W. Bush was a Texas oilman who hadn't even run for Congress yet in 1963.
I am astonished that CTists keep bringing up Operation Northwoods as a reminder that dangerous, deceptive schemes can be cooked up by the U.S. government, as if the fact that we are in Iraq isn't reminder enough. Perspective, people, perspective!
December 1st, 1984. A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research.
Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
10 takeoffs and 13 landings? That is one special plane!Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
This is supposed to work with the "Operation Northwoods" idea that drone aircraft with fake passengers could be used in a "false flag" terrorism scheme. The problem with that connection is that piloted planes were used to kill thousands of real people on 9/11. Has any conspiracy theorist, anywhere, shown evidence that the planes were not piloted? No.
August, 1997. The cover of FEMA's "Emergency Response to Terrorism" depicts the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
February 28th, 1998. The Global Hawk, Raytheon's Unmanned-aircraft-vehicle, completes its first flight over Edwards Air Force Base in California, at an altitude of 32000 feet, cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner.
Global Hawk? Three minutes and twelve seconds and nothing you've said has had any demonstrable connection to 9/11.February 28th, 1998. The Global Hawk, Raytheon's Unmanned-aircraft-vehicle, completes its first flight over Edwards Air Force Base in California, at an altitude of 32000 feet, cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner.
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
00:03:21
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
Makes sense. That's the north tower, WTC 1, in the crosshairs. It was bombed by Islamic terrorists in 1993. The terrorists were trying to knock the north tower into the south, killing tens of thousands of people. They did a lot of damage, but "only" six people died, and the cyanide gas that had been packed with the bomb was incinerated by the explosion.June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
September, 2000. The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences." In it, they declare that " the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. "
I have yet to come across a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who DID NOT use this quote as "evidence" that the terrorist attacks were an "inside job" by the neo-cons in the U.S. government. However, the PNAC quote is about the typically slow growth of military technology, abetted by budget cuts in defense R&D. It is in no way a plan or suggestion for a "new Pearl Harbor." Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?
According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.
The PNAC document was released just before the Presidential election of 2000. It is highly critical of the cuts in defense spending made during the Clinton administration, as well as being critical of how defense spending was allocated during those years.
The document is mostly concerned with the transformations the authors believe are necessary to keep America's military dominent in a world where many adversaries may soon have :
1) Long range missiles, and
2) Satellite-based battlefield-awareness technology
In the few pages of excerpts in Appendix D, the word "transform" or "transformation" is used 36 times.
What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."
That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does mention terrorism a few times:
And :
A brief mention, regarding budget cuts :
And once more, about advanced biological warfare :
So, no indication there that terrorism is an immediate threat to the U.S. Now, let's look at the "Pearl Harbor" comment in context. (For further excerpts, go to Appendix D at the end of this document (or Click here to view the full report.) :
Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.
As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.
The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.
The PNAC report displays some of the neo-con's cockiness about the U.S. military presence in the Mid East (emphasis mine):
There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.
In 2003, the U.S. closed its bases Saudi Arabia. And all those billions that could have been spent on missile defense are being frittered away in a war with a country that did not, and could not, attack us. Not exactly according to plan, eh?
Some related questions for conspiracy theorists:
Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility? 100 years? Never? This isn't "Operation Northwoods" were talking about here. Try to keep some perspective.
If the U.S. planned the attacks of 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, why did they use 15 Saudis as "scapegoats," and not 15, or 20, Iraqis?
"Conspiracy Theorists:Why are you allowed to speak?" If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a "stranglehold" on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush's "favorable" rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?
Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld:
Another Ex-General Rumbling Against Rumsfeld:
Another General wants Rummy to go:
These stories are from major media outlets and from smaller organizations.The last is from CrooksAndLiars.com. Conspiracy theorists, why is CrooksAndLiars.com allowed to exist?
Back to the video :
00:04:19
April, 2001. NORAD plans an exercise in which a plane is flown into the Pentagon, but is rejected as "too unrealistic".To clarify, they didn't intend to fly a real plane into the Pentagon.
00:04:43
Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not national. From Ashcroft's 9/11 Commission testimony:
00:04:57
July 4th, 2001. Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998, receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA.This was reported by the French paper Le Figaro, quoting an anonymous source. The story is unconfirmed. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that this happened.
In fact, according to court documents, Silverstein initially only wanted to insure the center for $1.5 billion. His lenders wanted a figure more like $5 billion. He finally settled for a figure in between, $3.5 billion. Source
00:05:25
September 6th, 2001. 3,150 put options are placed on United Airlines' stock. A put option is a bet that a stock will fall. That day, put options were more than 4 times its daily average.Higher than normal, yes. But this number had twice been over 8,000 during the year 2001. Source
And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:
That's all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming from. Source
According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.
The PNAC document was released just before the Presidential election of 2000. It is highly critical of the cuts in defense spending made during the Clinton administration, as well as being critical of how defense spending was allocated during those years.
The document is mostly concerned with the transformations the authors believe are necessary to keep America's military dominent in a world where many adversaries may soon have :
1) Long range missiles, and
2) Satellite-based battlefield-awareness technology
In the few pages of excerpts in Appendix D, the word "transform" or "transformation" is used 36 times.
What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."
That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does mention terrorism a few times:
In fact, national military forces, paramilitary units, terrorists, and any other potential adversaries will share the high ground of space with the United States and its allies.
And :
America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energyproducing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other "non-state actors." The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century - which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example - maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes, especially in East Asia.
A brief mention, regarding budget cuts :
When the USS Lincoln carrier battle group fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and suspected chemical weapons facilities in Sudan, it did so with 12 percent fewer people in the battle group than on the previous deployment.
And once more, about advanced biological warfare :
Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
So, no indication there that terrorism is an immediate threat to the U.S. Now, let's look at the "Pearl Harbor" comment in context. (For further excerpts, go to Appendix D at the end of this document (or Click here to view the full report.) :
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.
As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.
The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.
The PNAC report displays some of the neo-con's cockiness about the U.S. military presence in the Mid East (emphasis mine):
After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. In addition to the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, the United States now also retains what amounts to a near-permanent land force presence in Kuwait. A substantial heavy task force with almost the strength of a brigade rotates four times a year on average for maneuvers and joint training with the Kuwaiti army, with the result that commanders now believe that, in conjunction with the Southern Watch fleet, Kuwait itself is strongly defended against any Iraqi attack. With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no fly and "no drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed.
There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.
In 2003, the U.S. closed its bases Saudi Arabia. And all those billions that could have been spent on missile defense are being frittered away in a war with a country that did not, and could not, attack us. Not exactly according to plan, eh?
Some related questions for conspiracy theorists:
Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility? 100 years? Never? This isn't "Operation Northwoods" were talking about here. Try to keep some perspective.
If the U.S. planned the attacks of 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, why did they use 15 Saudis as "scapegoats," and not 15, or 20, Iraqis?
"Conspiracy Theorists:Why are you allowed to speak?" If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a "stranglehold" on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush's "favorable" rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?
The Revolt Against Rumsfeld
The officer corps is getting restless.
By Fred Kaplan Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 6:07 PM ET
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."
But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002-quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:
"I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat-al-Qaeda. - [T]he Pentagon's military leaders - with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. - It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again." Source
The officer corps is getting restless.
By Fred Kaplan Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 6:07 PM ET
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."
But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002-quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:
"I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat-al-Qaeda. - [T]he Pentagon's military leaders - with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. - It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again." Source
Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld:
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says
Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.
"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday. Source
Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.
"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday. Source
Another Ex-General Rumbling Against Rumsfeld:
Increasing Number of Retired Top Military Leaders Want Defense Secretary to Resign
By John Yang, ABC News
April 13, 2006 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has collected "Rumsfeld's Rules," bits of advice and guidelines gleaned during his four decades in government and industry - nearly 160 items in all when they were published on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page as he took office in 2001.
These days, a small but growing number of retired commanders would like Rumsfeld to think about one he came up with while he was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff: "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance."
The latest to join the chorus was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, now says the Pentagon's civilian leadership needs a "fresh start." He told the Washington Post: "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Source
By John Yang, ABC News
April 13, 2006 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has collected "Rumsfeld's Rules," bits of advice and guidelines gleaned during his four decades in government and industry - nearly 160 items in all when they were published on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page as he took office in 2001.
These days, a small but growing number of retired commanders would like Rumsfeld to think about one he came up with while he was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff: "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance."
The latest to join the chorus was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, now says the Pentagon's civilian leadership needs a "fresh start." He told the Washington Post: "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Source
Another General wants Rummy to go:
On Shepard Smith's Studio B, an 8th general has called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Ripper was interviewed by FOX News reporter Bret Baier.
Video-WMP Video-QuickTime
Van Riper claims that he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his view that there needs to be new civilian leadership in the Pentagon. He says that Rumsfeld has not fought the war in Iraq competantly and has run the Pentagon with intimidation. FOX does try to play up the "second hand "information angle, but since Murtha came forward-we all know how many of our military leaders really feel.
Video-WMP Video-QuickTime
Van Riper claims that he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his view that there needs to be new civilian leadership in the Pentagon. He says that Rumsfeld has not fought the war in Iraq competantly and has run the Pentagon with intimidation. FOX does try to play up the "second hand "information angle, but since Murtha came forward-we all know how many of our military leaders really feel.
These stories are from major media outlets and from smaller organizations.The last is from CrooksAndLiars.com. Conspiracy theorists, why is CrooksAndLiars.com allowed to exist?
Back to the video :
October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called MASCAL, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Charles Burlingame , an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, Participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 allegedly crashes into the building.
That's wrong. Burlingame had been a pilot with American since 1979.Source (Thanks CurtC).April, 2001. NORAD plans an exercise in which a plane is flown into the Pentagon, but is rejected as "too unrealistic".
June, 2001. The Department of Defense initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a hijacking.
Not exactly. See below.It states that for all non-immediate responses, the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense.
Nothing odd about that. The rules didn't change for immediate threats like hijackings.Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.
BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.
And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.
At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.
At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
July 4th, 2001. Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998, receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA.
July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center 7, signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11.
This was the result of a very long, very public open-bid process.Included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.
Remember the 1993 bombing? But had Silverstein conceived of the idea that the entire complex could be destroyed, he certainly would have purchased more insurance. $3.5 billion was not nearly enough to rebuild totally. More on insurance issues later.In fact, according to court documents, Silverstein initially only wanted to insure the center for $1.5 billion. His lenders wanted a figure more like $5 billion. He finally settled for a figure in between, $3.5 billion. Source
September 6th, 2001. 3,150 put options are placed on United Airlines' stock. A put option is a bet that a stock will fall. That day, put options were more than 4 times its daily average.
Bomb sniffing dogs are pulled from the World Trade Center, and security guards end two-weeks of 12 hour shifts.
They had been put on two weeks earlier because of phoned-in threats. The unusual thing is that they had been on extra duty for those two weeks, not that they were pulled off.September 7th, 2001. 27,294 put options are placed on Boeing's stock, more than 5 times the daily average.
With economic indicators for airlines falling, and airfares dropping, investors bet that manufacturers will receive fewer orders. Boeing stock had been declining since before 2000. (Thanks, Tirdun)September 10th, 2001. 4,516 put options are placed on American Airlines, almost 11 times its daily average.
American stock had been falling, and on Friday, Sept. 7 they announced a prediction of higher-than-expected losses for Q3 and Q4, on top of a Q2 loss. On Monday, investors made the safe bet that the stock would continue to fall. 911myths.com has covered this issue in depth.And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Newsweek reports that a number of top Pentagon brass cancel their flight plans for the next morning.
No, on Sept 24 they report that Pentagon brass canceled TRAVEL plans :On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.
But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington. Some officials complain that the intelligence community has been too focused on terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical and nuclear-while overlooking low-tech threats-like the use of penknives and box cutters to hijack a plane.
The Threat Committee has every reason to worry about bin Laden's trying to get hold of a nuke. During the New York trial of the men accused of bombing the embassies in Africa, one bin Laden associate testified that the boss had hatched a 1993 plan to spend $1.5 million to buy black-market uranium. He apparently failed-that time.
But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington. Some officials complain that the intelligence community has been too focused on terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical and nuclear-while overlooking low-tech threats-like the use of penknives and box cutters to hijack a plane.
The Threat Committee has every reason to worry about bin Laden's trying to get hold of a nuke. During the New York trial of the men accused of bombing the embassies in Africa, one bin Laden associate testified that the boss had hatched a 1993 plan to spend $1.5 million to buy black-market uranium. He apparently failed-that time.
That's all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming from. Source
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a phone call warning him not to fly the next morning.
Pacifica Radio later reveals that this phone call came directly from National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
This is an unconfirmed story. Brown said the call came from his airport security people. A "worldwide" travel warning had been issued on Sept. 7, but did not involve travel in the U.S.How many urologists would normally be at a Pakistani military hospital? I have yet to see any confirmation of this story.
In order to host their guest of honor, Osama Bin Laden,
"Guest of honor": your words, or those of the hospital? Were they "hosting" or treating?Who is carefully escorted inside to "be watched carefully and looked after".
I don't have a whole lot of experience with hospitals, but aren't they generally where people go to "be watched carefully and looked after?CBS later reports that on this day, bin Laden is admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for kidney dialysis treatment. Pakistani military forces guard bin Laden. They also move out all the regular staff in the urology department and send in a secret team to replace them. It is not known how long he stays there. [CBS News, 2/28/2002]
00:06:45
September 11th, 2001. The National Reconnaisance Office in Chantilly, Virginia is preparing for an exercise in which a small corporate jet crashes into their building.
NORAD is in the middle of a number of military exercises. Note: prior to 9/11/01, NORAD was responsible only for threats coming from outside U.S. borders. Only once in the prior decade had NORAD attempted to intercept a stray civilian aircraft over U.S. soil, which was golfer Payne Stewart's plane, after its crew and passengers fell unconscious.September 11th, 2001. The National Reconnaisance Office in Chantilly, Virginia is preparing for an exercise in which a small corporate jet crashes into their building.
The first, "Vigilant Guardian", is described as "An exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide".
The 9/11 Commission report described it as an exercise "which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union". (Chapter 1, note 116) Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had "stood down" on 9/11, they were unusually "geared up." Because of the semiannual exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make decisions.The second, "Northern Vigilance", moved fighter jets to Canada and Alaska to fight off an imaginary Russian fleet.
Most people don't know that NORAD is a joint U.S./Canadian organization. The normal force of fighters on alert to protect the country remained in place: 14 at 7 air bases.Three F-16s from Washington DC's National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the Pentagon, are flown 180 nautical miles away for a training mission in North Carolina. These planes would not have been on alert status. Two F-16s practicing bombing runs in southern New Jersey were not armed.
00:07:31
This left 14 fighter jets to protect the entire United States.
Which was normal. Military budget cuts over the previous few years had drastically reduced the number of fighters on alert. Remember the "Peace Dividend?" During the cold war the U.S. had over 100 bases with aircraft ready to scramble. It's important to understand the meaning of "alert" as opposed to "Combat ready." "On alert" means the plane is fueled, armed and ready to go, with pilots waiting in the ready room for a scramble order. "Combat Status" means a plane will be ready for combat, usually in 24 to 72 hours. Some people will cite the number of air bases near the flight paths of the hijacked planes. That does not mean that planes and pilots were ready to go at a moment's notice. A brief overview of NORAD's difficult job on 9/11 is here.This left 14 fighter jets to protect the entire United States.
" Hi, Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York. And we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out."
NORAD Command " Is this real or exercise? "
" No, this is not exercise, not a test. "
" Do we wanna think about scrambling an aircraft? "
Video of north tower being hit by AA flight 11. Another problem throughout the video: there are few graphics telling the viewer when events are happening, when "live" news footage was etc. We don't know if we're getting a correct chronology or if creative editing is being applied. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the next part of the conversation took place at 9:49 and was in reference to flight 93 in Pennsylvania.NORAD Command " Is this real or exercise? "
" No, this is not exercise, not a test. "
" Do we wanna think about scrambling an aircraft? "
Here's a report I hadn't seen before, from a man who was in the north tower and saw flight 11 approach: (Source)
From a window on the 61st floor in the north tower, Ezra Aviles had seen everything. He knew it was no bomb. His window faced north, and he saw the plane tearing through the skies, heading straight for the tower. It had crashed into the building over his head-how far, he was not sure. In fact, its lower wing cut the ceiling of the 93rd floor, and its right wing had ripped across the 98th floor, at the very moment that Patricia Massari was speaking to her husband about her home pregnancy test.
Aviles worked for the Port Authority. He dialed five numbers, leaving identical messages, describing what he saw, and telling everyone up the chain of command to begin the evacuation. He called one colleague, John Paczkowski, but reached his voice mail. "It seems to be an American Airlines jetliner came in from the northern direction, toward-from the Empire State Building, toward us," Aviles said. He ticked through a list of notifications-he had called the police and the public affairs office, and had beeped the chief operating officer for the agency. "Smoke is beginning to come, so I think I'm gonna start bailing outta here, man.... Don't come near the building if you're outside. Pieces are coming down, man. Bye."
" Oooh, God I don't know. "
" That's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes. "
" Uh, yeah, you know, everybody just left the room. "
00:08:12
[Radio Interview] " The first question I have is basically to get from you a sense of how you would rate the American media in their coverage of the events of the attack last September? "
Bring on the Hunter S. Thompson voiceovers." That's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes. "
" Uh, yeah, you know, everybody just left the room. "
[Radio Interview] " The first question I have is basically to get from you a sense of how you would rate the American media in their coverage of the events of the attack last September? "
[Hunter S. Thomson] "well let's see eehmmm, shamefully is a word that comes to mind "
00:08:31
TV Newsman Peter Jennings: " This just in you are looking at obviously very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. "
[Hunter S. Thompson] "but overall, the American journalism was cowed, and intimidated by the this massive flag-sucking, this patriotic, orgy..."
Almost 9 minutes in, the title sequence begins :TV Newsman Peter Jennings: " This just in you are looking at obviously very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. "
[Hunter S. Thompson] "but overall, the American journalism was cowed, and intimidated by the this massive flag-sucking, this patriotic, orgy..."
" you know if you're criticizing the President it's unpatriotic and there's something wrong with you and you may be a terrorist...
so, so in that sense, Hunter S. Thomson, there's not enough room for dissenting voices?
" Well, there's plenty of room, just not enough people willing to take the risk. "
00:09:02
" I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft or to be more specific. Some people said they thought they saw a missile. " Unidentified voiceover. There was definitely a blue logo, [it was] circular logo on the front of the plane "
111-117: Unidentified voiceover & interviewer. We know from other sources that the interviewee is Marc Birnbach, a freelance photographer. The video doesn't mention what Birnbach's vantage point was, which would be good to know (see below).so, so in that sense, Hunter S. Thomson, there's not enough room for dissenting voices?
" Well, there's plenty of room, just not enough people willing to take the risk. "
00:09:02
" I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft or to be more specific. Some people said they thought they saw a missile. " Unidentified voiceover. There was definitely a blue logo, [it was] circular logo on the front of the plane "
" It definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides. "
"Mark, [sic] if that what you say is true those could be cargo planes? You said, you didn't see any windows in the sides?"
"Mark, [sic] if that what you say is true those could be cargo planes? You said, you didn't see any windows in the sides?"
This is United N612UA, (flight 175) as it would look at approximately 1 mile.
Birnbach was over two miles away when he saw it. Source
Can you pick out the windows on airliner at 12,000 feet?
"I didn't see any windows on sides. It was not a normal flight that I had ever seen, at an airport, it was a plane that had a blue logo on the front "
"and, and it just... it did not look like it belonged in this area."
Hunter S. voiceover again "It's sort of a herd mentality a lemming-like mentality. If you don't go with the flow you're anti-American and therefore a suspect."
TV Newsman on the scene "This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center - You can see the firemen assembled here, the police officers, FBI agents and you can see the Two Towers, a huge explosion, raining debris on all of us. We better get out of the way"
South tower collapses. This is out of chronological order, because we haven't seen it being hit yet. Notice how the debris falls much faster (in the video, at free-fall speed) than the bulk of the building :Hunter S. voiceover again "It's sort of a herd mentality a lemming-like mentality. If you don't go with the flow you're anti-American and therefore a suspect."
TV Newsman on the scene "This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center - You can see the firemen assembled here, the police officers, FBI agents and you can see the Two Towers, a huge explosion, raining debris on all of us. We better get out of the way"
Here's a better view of the free-fall of debris, in a still not from "Loose Change":
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]
Think there wasn't an inferno in WTC 7 ? Click here.
Then we quick-cut back and forth between WTC 7 collapsing and some building being demolished. There's no narration, just head-banging music.
Since we're on the topic of WTC 7, let's take a look at some more quotes from the experts who were on the scene. These are collected on the excellent website Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories :
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies? Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski Source
"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski Source
Looking south towards ruins of WTC 6 and 1. WTC 7 is at left. Photographer is 200 meters from WTC 1 :
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department Source
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers Source
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan Source
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. Source
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody- My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.Source
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers Source
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan Source
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. Source
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody- My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.Source
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Hunter S. voiceover again : " You sort of wonder, when something like that happens, "
Smoke is being pushed out of the collapse zone. Had explosives caused the collapse, you would have seen an effect like this BEFORE the top started to fall, not AFTER :
In the circled area is what "controlled demolitions theory" advocates like to call a "squib," a jet of material caused by explosive charges timed to be in synch with the top-down collapse.
Just watch the video to see how wrong they are. It's perfectly clear that the material in the "squib" isn't being blasted out of the building, it's FLOWING, at exactly the speed that the top is falling. No explosion could cause that slow-motion effect. It's simply the "plunger" effect of air being compressed :
The video shows the same "squib" from another angle, with debris being SQUEEZED out. As the collapse picks up speed, you can see these bursts of compressed air get more energetic,. Again, not what you'd see with explosions.
The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."
H.S.T. again " who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and motive? You just gotta look at this basic things. I don't assume that I know the truth about what went on that day."
"And yeah, I just look around looking for who had the motive, who had the opportunity, who had the equipment, who had the will... "
Islamic Jihadists had the will, and the way."I've spent enough time on the inside, well the White House, and, you know campaigns, and i've known enough of the people who do these things,"
Who launch terrorist attacks against Americans? And if you know them, Hunter, why didn't you say so in any of your books or articles? Maybe these attacks could have been prevented if you had just given us a hint."to know that, the public version of the news, of an event, is never really what happened. And these people I think are willing to take that even further."
Beliefs are one thing, evidence another. That's why I'm spending my time doing this. Anyone can spout conspiracy theories.It's been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist, anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any individual not already named in the "official" version?
If you have no evidence that anyone in your version was involved in any way, why are you are absolutely convinced that the U.S. government committed the atrocities of 9/11?
(Unnamed interviewer) "It seems a very long bow to me, but are you sort of suggesting that this worked in a favor of the Bush administration?"
Hunter S.: "Oh absolutely, ...Absolutely."
.jpeg)
Articles
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire