Our charges on 9-11 are based on facts and reasoning, not mere speculation

sherrynstan at igc.org sherrynstan at igc.org
Thu Dec 6 22:19:06 MST 2001


This is depressing.  Am I being unnecessarily combative, or do I just need to get off line for a few days?  Jared, you know I luv ya.  But you ain't got proof, brother.

GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS
Introduction & Part 1, Section 1
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[Posted 14 November 2001]
[Updated 17 November 2001]
Dedicated to the firemen of New York.
=======================================
INTRODUCTION TO SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.
On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews.

SAYING THEY WERE COMBAT READY DOES NOT MEAN THERE WAS A STAND-BY STATUS IN EFFECT.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WAS THE STATUS OF THE CREWS.  HOW MANY WERE ON STAND-BY, AND WHAT WAS THEIR SPIN-UP TIME?  TEN MINUTES?  THIRTY MINUTES?  ONE HOURS?  TWO HOURS?  IS ANYONE ACTUALLY SUITED UP AND READY TO FLY?  IF SO, HOW MANY, AND WHAT ARE THEIR STANDING ORDERS?  WHAT IS THEIR PRIMARY MISSION?

Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C.

DO YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT STATES THIS IS THEIR MISSION?

They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.

I MYSELF HAVE QUESTIONED THIS, BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, WHAT WAS THEIR ACTUAL STATUS?  DID THEY ACTUALLY MAINTAIN “HOT” CREWS AND CRAFT?  IF THE ANSWER IS NO, IT COULD CONCIEVABLY TAKE WELL OVER AN HOUR TO GET A BIRD ALOFT.

The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

THIS NEEDS TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC BEFORE IT CONSTITUTES PROOF.  AGAIN, WHAT SPECIFIC ROLE DOES ANDREWS PLAY HERE, IF ANY?  WHAT ARE THE CAPABILITIES OF THIS NORAD-USAF-FAA PROCEDURE?  WHAT IS THE SEQUENCE OF THE PROCEDURE(S)?

Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:
"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
--'Newsday,' 23 September 2001 (1)

IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS IN FACT NOT COMPLICIT, THIS IS NOT AN OUTRAGEOUS THING TO SAY.

Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is a lie.

INFORMATION FROM THE MASS MEDIA ON EVERY OPERATION I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN HAS BEEN 100% INACCURATE.  WHY SHOULD WE BEGIN TO GIVE THEM CREDIBILITY ONLY WHEN THEY SUPPORT OUR HYPOTHESES?  THAT SAID, I DON'T EVEN THINK WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN CALL IT PROOF.

Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.

The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and defense systems.

AGREED.  BUT WHAT THEY "SHOULD HAVE" DONE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF A LIE.

The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)
'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:
"'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"
--'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)

U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day.

BUT THIS IS A MEANINGLESS GENERALIZATION UNLESS WE KNOW PRECISELY HOW THEY ARE ACTIVATED, AND WHAT THE ACTIVATION SEQUENCES ARE.

On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency.

PURE CONJECTURE.

This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

WILD GENERALIZATION.  YOU HAVEN’T YET ESTABLISHED WHAT THE PROCEDURES ARE.  YET YOU CONCLUDE THEY “FAILED.”  WHEREUPON YOU CONCLUDE IT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE.  RAISING THE QUESTION IS ONE THING.  BUT ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS IS ANOTHER.  THE QUESTION OF THE ACTUAL ALERT STATUS AT ANDREWS, AND THE QUESTION OF THE FAA-USAF-NORAD PROCEDURES, AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ANYONE MIGHT HAVE FUCKED UP ANY OF THOSE PROCEDURES, ARE ALL OPEN.

Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

ALL THIS, NOW, IS BASED ON A SET OF UNPROVEN ASSUMPTIONS.  WE SIMPLY DON’T HAVE THE PROCEDURES, SO WE DON’T KNOW WHAT ROUTINE PROTECTIONS SYSTEMS ACTUALLY ARE, THEREFORE WE CAN NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE DISRUPTED OR NOT.

The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command.

STANDING ALONE, THIS STATEMENT CAN NOT BE PROVED.

This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect...

AND SO IT GOES...

It's not proof, Jared.  Not even close.

I know Mike Ruppert got a big audience.  Someone's trying to get me on a "tour" with him.  The size of his audience proves nothing.  Don't get me wrong.  I defended you and Mike to Chip Berlet like I was your own personal bull terrier.  But I defended you against the accusation that you are fronting for the right-wing.  And I'm the first one to say the whole thing doesn't pass the smell test.  But I'm not going to give the other side a stick to beat us with by claiming proof that isn't there yet.

I hope this makes Joan happy.  Me, playing the logic card.  I feel like I'm just pissing everyone off, or maybe just myself...

BTW, Congratulations to Sander on the play!  You crazy boy, you!  Do some of these conversations ever remind you of your ISO days?  They sure remind me of my CP days.

With all that, I think I'll lurk a bit.

Warm hugs all around.  Coffee's on me.

Stan


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list