LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2005

Subject:

Re: 911 Conspiracy Theories

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:55:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

Richard, I believe you are misreading Griffin's book. He doesn't
advocate any particular idea of what happened on the infamous day; he
reports coherent challenges to the official "conspiracy theory" -- some
of them even contradict each other. Nor does he say that the Pentagon
was hit by a missile, far as I can tell, but that here is some evidence
that contradicts the official story, including some reasearchers who
claim this as a possibility. His main goal is in dissecting the official
story and in showing where it relies on no evidence at all or
unsubstantiated claims.

There are several key books on this, including Michael Ruppert's
"Crossing the Rubicon" and around 7 or 8 others. I'll put a list together
and send it. In the meantime, a good place to begin is with MY article --
the lead story on Unanswered Questions and the Role of the U.S.
Government on 9-11 -- in the current "G" newspaper, published by the
NY State Greens.

I'll send it to this list as a text email in a day or two.

In the meantime, check out World Trade Center #7, a 47-story building.
How did it collapse? It was not hit by airplanes, it had relatively little
damage (two small and controllable fires), and was most likely ordered
by the owner, billionaire Larry Silverstein, to "pull it" -- i.e., to take
it
down in controlled demolition ON SEPTEMBER 11th!!! Where did those
explosives come from? When were they installed? Silverstein made
around $500 million profit from that one building alone. Plus, the
building housed the largest CIA offices outside of Langley, Mayor
Giuliani's "inpenetrable" bunker, and the SEC offices in which all the
files on Enron were stored.

Another place to look into is 911Truth.org. They've put together a
comprehensive legal document asking NY Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer to call a grand jury investigation for criminal charges resulting
from 9-11.

Obviously, there's a lot more, and a great deal to digest. This
movement for the truth about what happened does not dissolve when
some of the "theories" are shot down. The main thing is the evidence
for what the U.S. government says happened -- where is it? -- and the
questions they are NOT asking.


Mitchel Cohen


From: Richard Leigh [log in to unmask]

We have a situation in NYC where some people who have been
exceptionally
productive and strong in opposing the war and the Bush agenda have
gotten
caught up in accepting particularly strong assertions about the
Administration's complicity in the events of 9-11. The key document is
a
book called "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffen. It has a
forward
by Richard Falk and encomiums by Howard Zinn and Marcus Raskin. I
have
only skimmed it and talked to people who have read it, but the book
lays
out the case for believing that the Bush junta actually knew 9-11 was
about
to happen and let it, or maybe even planned it. It includes claims that
the towers and Building 7 were brought down by previously placed
explosives
rather than the fires resulting from the impact, and that a missile, rather
than AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

This is a big, complicated mess and poking around on the Internet,
e.g.,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/index.html
can get you very excited. Several people claim that UA 93 was actually
shot down over PA rather than crashing as a result of the heroic
struggle
of the passengers. I'm not convinced of this, but it's not preposterous,
since the Air Force would much rather let the hijackers take all the
blame,
and they didn't know where the plane might go or who was in charge,
so (if
they knew where it was) they might have felt they had to shoot.

My biggest problem is with the notion that the towers didn't fall from the
fires. Griffen's description (p.16) is based on the erroneous notion that
the smouldering fuel fires couldn't heat the steel enough to soften it to
the point where it couldn't carry its load (~1200-1300F), hence the
explosives. The whole description seems pasted together by technical
auto-didacts who really don't know their stuff. They even claim that the
fact that the South Tower, hit second, fell first, shows that explosives
were used. (It fell first because it was hit much lower down, so the
weight on the weakened steel was much greater. They may also have
been
differences in exactly where and how the fires burned, of course.)

Griffen also makes a case that a missile hit the Pentagon and AA 77
went
somewhere else and disappeared. This seems really silly in the light
of
all the witnesses who report having seen a plane fly into the Pentagon
(check the above web site, e.g.), but since the clean-up was apparently
carried out in "top secret" mode, the military have only themselves to
blame if people don't believe them.

I have no problem with a massive conspiracy to hide the
incompetence, lack
of coordination, etc. We spend a trillion dollars on the military and
they can't even figure out that we're under attack? My Pet Goat? Of
course they had to dodge and obfuscate and deny. And they are evil
enough
to do anything. But I don't think they are capable of the out-of-the-box
thinking it would take to ally with al Quaeda, and the conspiracy
theorist's technical argumentation (the parts I have read) seems really
contrived.

Has anyone in the group spent any time on this and come to a different
conclusion? Any explanation for Falk and Zinn and Raskin going for
this story?


All the best,
Dick

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager