[Nettime-bold] scary stuff

["Dimitri Devyatkin" <devyatkin@earthlink.net>]

Here is an article that strongly presents the possibility that GW Bush & Co.
or the US power structures may have actually arranged the explosions at the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The evidence presented here revolves around the timing of the two airplanes
hitting the WTC, perhaps it was to let most people escape -- hence only
5000+ casualties instead of the 50,000 who usually are in the buildings.
Also, the two towers collapsed in nearly identical manners, both looking a
lot like controlled implosions, as done professionally by military or
demolition experts. And why was the second tower to get hit the first to
implode, not the first? And how to explain the professional camera shooting
of the first explosion, the fireball image shown over and over again
throughout the world, as if a cameraman just happened to have his camera on
and pointed in the right direction. And where are the audio tapes of the
cell phone calls made from the hijacked airplanes? And the long delay in the
plane finally hitting the Pentagon, almost an hour and half after the first
plane was hijacked.

If this stuff troubles you, and you consider this evidence of at least
something fishy, doesn't it have the potential of changing your whole
interpretation of what really happened? What kind of evidence do you think
is really going to ever come out? --- like the hijacker's passport that just
happened to get found on the street a few blocks away from the WTC.

I'm e-mailing you this stuff while its still possible to read things like
this on the Internet. If you don't want to hear more things like this, drop
me an e-mail and I'll stop sending them to you. Otherwise, all I can say is,
its time to get scared, if you're not already. The F-16s are already
arriving in Pakistan as this is being written. Put me on your e-mail list
and send me anything you can of this nature too, please.

Dimitri Devyatkn
e-mail devyatkin@earthlink.net

___________________________________________________



Continuing Commentary on the WTC Attacks


David McGowan
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com
September 16, 2001

"Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens you can be
sure it was planned that way."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
It seems as though more people have been watching the Discovery
Channel than the planners of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon
may have accounted for. A good number of people are questioning
exactly why the collapse of the towers looked so much like a
controlled implosion. Anyone who has seen a documentary clip of a
building being professionally demolished using explosive charges
couldn't help but be struck by the remarkable similarity.
One demolition and explosives expert from New Mexico has already gone
public with his suspicions that the building was deliberately
imploded. Architects and engineers who designed the building were at
a loss to explain how it could react in such a manner. One expert,
prompted by his interviewer to comment on if more steel in the
structure could have prevented the tragedy, could only say that it
was hard to imagine how any more steel could have been incorporated
into any structure.
And it was, as we all know, not just one tower that literally
crumbled before our very eyes, but both of them in identical fashion.
As I myself was pondering that rather curious fact, I stumbled upon
yet another article giving a first-person report on the tragedy. This
particular account concerned an architecture student, who viewed the
unfolding drama from across the bay.
Some of his first thoughts - after the buildings had been struck, but
before they disappeared - were that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to fight a fire at that height, and that it would without
question be impossible to repair the damaged building. He found
himself pondering what would become of the imposing towers, being no
longer fit to be occupied. And then, of course, they just sort of
vanished.
Suddenly the plan began to come into focus. The initial crashes and
explosions, which were essential for the shock value of being so
utterly audacious, would necessarily destroy the buildings. It would
have therefore been necessary, at some time in the future, to implode
the buildings. Why not then include it as part of the show?
It seems a little odd that the period of time that elapsed between
the suicide bombings and the implosions appears to have been just
about the amount of time that it took to evacuate the buildings. That
could account for why the casualty figures have been, assuming that
they are being accurately reported, remarkably low.
It could also account for why the first tower to crumble was not the
first one hit. According to claims made by some avenues of the media,
the collapses were the result of the structures being weakened by the
fires, with the upper stories essentially pancaking down upon the
buildings and the underlying floors giving way to the collective
weight of the chain reaction.
But if this were true, wouldn't it be expected that the first tower
hit, which had been burning for nearly twenty minutes longer, would
be the first to collapse? Of course, it would also be expected that
the second tower, having the benefit of beginning evacuation twenty
minutes before utter chaos reigned, would be the first to be emptied
out. Quite a lucky break then that it was the first to fall.
To stir up as much outrage as possible, it was of course necessary to
get footage of the crashes themselves, as well as the implosions,
although it seems a little odd that the first crash was recorded so
professionally, as if someone was waiting for it camera in hand. That
footage, of course, has incalculable propaganda value.
Propaganda is certainly something that we have seen a lot of in the
last week. The sheer volume of, and the monotony of, the media
coverage has been astounding. Every station across the television
dial playing the same footage and providing the same unquestioning
commentary continuously, around the clock, from the moment the first
plane hit the tower.
The media barrage is unavoidable. Absurdly large headlines scream out
from every newspaper and magazine, and every radio station seems to
sound the same. There is no escape. And there is likely a reason for
that. Somewhere in the halls of power, there just may be an awareness
that the official story of the 'terrorist' attacks isn't very
convincing.
It isn't by chance that there is nothing else to be found on the
television dial beyond images of planes crashing into buildings. It
was reported on Saturday that the networks had been demonstrating
what was said to be an unusually high level of cooperation during
this crisis. They've actually been talking amongst themselves to
decide how long the bombardment of the national consciousness should
go on.
It has likely been deemed necessary to browbeat the country into
accepting the unlikely scenario that is being passed off as fact. It
is the media's job at this point to prevent the people, as much as
possible, from actually thinking for themselves. And with such
extensive coverage, haven't our news commentators already thought
everything out for us anyway?
Apparently not, as people seem to be scurrying about the Internet
like cockroaches, trying desperately to snatch up any little morsel
of information that the media are holding back on - trying to make
sense of a story that makes no inherent sense.
Some additional details have been added that appear to be an attempt
to bolster some of the more flimsy aspects of the official story.
After reports began to air that home-made knives were the weapon of
choice, it was quickly added that bomb threats were made on at least
some of the flights. But does that really add to the credibility of
the story?
If a guy waving a "knife-like" object claims to have a bomb in a box,
would he be believed? Would it seem credible that a someone who
couldn't get anything more threatening than a razor blade on-board
had somehow smuggled aboard an unseen bomb? And if pulling off such a
bluff was so easy to do, shouldn't we have seen some other hijackings
in the last decade?
Some reports have claimed that cellular telephone calls coming from
the doomed flights, allegedly caught on tape, confirm the official
story. If true, this raises a number of interesting questions. The
first of these is: if these tapes in fact exist, then why haven't we
heard them? Why, with wall-to-wall coverage of this great American
tragedy, have these harrowing tapes not been burned indelibly into
the American psyche?
Such tapes would obviously have considerable propaganda value in
further inflaming the passions of the masses and promoting the
genocidal agenda being pursued. Strange then that we haven't been
treated to the poignant final words of some of the victims of this
mass murder. The media certainly weren't shy about airing such gut-
wrenching footage as the images of hapless victims leaping to their
certain deaths.
Why then haven't we heard the farewell messages of the passengers
aboard the suicide flights? Strange also that some of those alleged
calls just happened to be placed to one of the most notorious members
of the current administration, Solicitor General Theodore Olson
(see "A Supreme Injustice," Parts I and II).
There is also the question of how such tapes would even exist. There
are two possibilities here, and both of them have rather disturbing
implications. The first is that all cellular communications are
routinely recorded, which would speak volumes about the state
of 'democracy' in this country. The other possibility is that calls
coming from the hijacked aircraft were specifically monitored. That
of course raises the obvious question of why, if the flights were
being so closely monitored, they were nevertheless allowed to proceed
unimpeded to their intended targets.
It has been reliably reported that it was known fairly early on that
the flights had been hijacked. It was also known (even though the
transponders were disabled, by someone with a high degree of
technical knowledge) that the planes had changed their flight path.
It is inconceivable then that the wayward flights were not being
tracked and monitored.
According to the official timelines that have appeared in the New
York and Los Angeles Times, by 8:15-8:20 AM, air traffic controllers
had received clear indications that flight 11 out of Boston, in
flight for just twenty minutes, had been hijacked - the aircraft's
transponder had been shut off and the pilot was not responding to
radio calls.
By 8:28 AM, the aircraft had radically changed course and there was
no question that the flight had been hijacked, a fact acknowledged by
the FAA. By this time, flight 175 out of Boston and flight 77 out of
Dulles were also in the air. Just two minutes later, flight 175
deviated from its flight path as well, indicating that it had also
been hijacked.
It was still nearly a half-an-hour before the first plane would plow
into the WTC, and there were already very clear indications that this
wasn't a normal day for air traffic in America. Two civilian
passenger planes had been hijacked simultaneously, an unprecedented
occurrence, and yet no action was immediately taken to avert the
tragedy that was to come.
At 8:38 AM, the Air Defense Command was allegedly first notified of
the hijacking of flight 11, twenty minutes after air traffic
controllers first became aware of that fact. Reports give no
indication that notification was given at that time that the second
flight had changed course as well. Five more minutes passed before
the military was informed by the FAA of the second hijacking.
At 8:45 AM, flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the WTC. Ten
minutes later, flight 77 abruptly turned around and turned off its
transponder. Three flights were then known to have been hijacked,
with two still in the air and one having already spectacularly
crashed into a heavily occupied building. The most technologically
advanced and militarily prepared nation on earth proceeded to sit on
its hands.
After ten more minutes had passed, flight 175 crashed even more
spectacularly into the south WTC tower. There was absolutely no
question at that point that this was a serious national emergency.
Flight 93 out of Newark had by then radically changed course as well,
clearly indicating that yet a fourth aircraft had been hijacked and
was a potential guided missile.
With New York's most visible landmark in flames and two hijacked
flights in the air, America's formidable national security apparatus
sat idle. By 9:10 AM, the Pentagon's radar had reportedly picked up
flight 77, which was still a half-an-hour away from plowing into what
is described as the military's nerve center.
At 9:25 AM, the FAA purportedly notified Air Defense that flight 77
was heading for Washington, though radar had determined that fact
fifteen minutes earlier and it had been known for a full half-hour
that the plane had turned around and headed back east. At 9:35, two F-
16 fighter jets were scrambled, at least an hour and twenty minutes
after the first flight had been hijacked and nearly an hour after it
had crashed.
The jets were dispatched, appropriately enough, from Langley Air
Force Base, which isn't so much an 'Air Force' base as it is the base
of the CIA's own private fleet of military aircraft. The Pentagon was
struck just minutes later, some fifteen minutes before the F-16s
arrived on the scene, but nearly an hour-and-a-half after the rash of
hijackings began.
A steady stream of talking heads have taken to the airwaves to claim
that no contingency plans were in place for such an attack. Despite
decades of military planning for every possible type of attack on
these shores, and despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent on
air and civil defenses, no one - we are to believe - ever envisioned
such an assault.
We are not talking here, it should be noted, about some type of
technologically advanced 'terrorist' tactic that should have caught
the supposed guardians of our national security off-guard. The use of
aircraft as guided missiles has been a technique of warfare that has
existed since airplanes became a part of the world's military
arsenal.
To no one's surprise, the first name mentioned as a suspect, before
the first shards of glass hit the pavement from the impact of the
first plane, was everyone's favorite bogeyman, Osama bin Laden. He
is, as our media have been telling us for years, responsible for
every act of barbarism committed in the last decade, so why wouldn't
he be behind this as well?
Though a mind-boggling amount of media coverage has been devoted to
demonizing our all-purpose prime suspect, there seems to be a number
of things about bin Laden that the media insist on ignoring - such as
that he is almost entirely a creature of our own making. As any
number of more honest journalists (as well as MSNBC) have pointed
out, it was our very own CIA that armed, trained and funded his
organization during our escapades in Afghanistan.
In fact, there is certainly a possibility that we are still doing so
today. After all, he makes such a great villain, and of course having
a readily available villain is absolutely essential for scaring the
American people into line and justifying obscenely high military and
intelligence budgets. It's not like we have the 'Evil Empire'
anymore. And Fidel is getting a little long in the face to make much
of a credible villain.
As some reports have noted, bin Laden has very close ties to the
Saudi royal family. What none of these reports note though is that
the Saudi regime was installed decades ago in a coup sponsored by
lifetime intelligence asset Allen Dulles, working with British
intelligence asset Jack Philby.
The country, which is essentially a family-run oil conglomerate, has
largely been an American puppet-state ever since then. So if bin
Laden is still functioning as a covert U.S. intelligence asset, he
likely has a lot of company in his social circles.
It was interesting the other day to watch one of the talking heads on
TV let slip the fact that Harvard University had just recently
accepted a $1,000,000+ donation from Osama's brother to establish a
scholarship chair, or some such thing. The news anchor, who I believe
was Dan Rather nearing the end of a marathon run, stammered about for
some suitable response to that revelation. He didn't come up with
one.
I like to watch Dan when I want to get the real scoop on what's going
on in the world. I know I can trust Dan to deliver the truth. I know
that because he was the first journalist allowed to view the Zapruder
film, long before the public had seen it, and he dutifully reported
to the nation that the film showed President Kennedy's head snapping
forward when the fatal shot hit.
Dick Cheney made his first appearance before the American people
today. I hadn't seen him all week and I was beginning to wonder if he
hadn't taken the opportunity to have another one of those minor
little surgical heart procedures done. Then I realized that he was
just laying low to give Bush a much-needed chance to try and
look 'presidential,' as the press is fond of saying.
Dick was on the airwaves claiming that the White House had received
what he said was a "credible threat" that Air Force 1 was one of the
potential targets that the 'terrorists' were aiming for. This has to
be the most ridiculous claim that has yet been made. How could any
such threat, even if it were actually made, ever be considered
credible?
We are talking here, after all, about an unarmed, civilian passenger
plane. Was there really ever any danger of it eluding Air Force 1's
military escorts - state of the art fighter aircraft - and plowing
broadside into the presidential plane? First of all, the 'terrorists'
would have had to know precisely where it was.
Unlike the World Trade Center towers, Air Force 1 isn't a stationary
target. And it's a really big sky out there. The last time I checked,
it wasn't standard procedure to post the coordinates and the flight
path of AF 1 on the Internet. And even if it was, a civilian airliner
doesn't exactly have the capability to track and hone in on those
coordinates.
So this little fable of Cheney's was a rather obvious fabrication
whose intent was clearly to create the illusion that an assassination
attempt had been made on our president, thereby creating some kind
of 'rally around our leader' effect - all part of the plan to herd
the American people behind our fearless leader as he is given
unprecedented authority to wage war anywhere in the world that suits
the interests of corporate America.
The U.S. military response won't be long in coming and will arrive
with a vengeance. It's always best to strike, as they say, while the
iron is hot. There's no sense in whipping up all this blood-lust
among the American people if you don't use that emotion that has been
generated. What we will likely see is a massive, multi-pronged
military venture.
Who it is aimed at doesn't really seem to matter. The headline above
a column in the L.A. Daily News on Sunday read: "It's Time to Strike,
Not Compare: We Know Well Enough Who the Perpetrators Are." Well, I
guess if we know well enough, then by all means let the bombing
begin.
The funny thing is, this country's military response will look for
all the world as though it had been carefully planned and mapped-out
over many years. But we will all know that that isn't the case,
because no one knew these attacks were coming until a few days ago.
The other funny thing is, even as we are showcasing for the world
exactly what a wholesale assault on human life years of bloated
military/intelligence budgets can buy, commentators will continue to
talk of how we left ourselves vulnerable to this attack by neglecting
the military and intelligence sectors for years. And the people will
stare at their TVs and nod in agreement.



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold