By Gad, I do
believe that we are getting very close!!! It was a
high-level home-grown party! Arabs
nowhere in sight! Some
robot planes (small) thrown in the
mix...
9-11: The Flight Of The Bumble Planes
Duh,
complicated, but hey, it works for me!
How
about you, Ma? Yes,
son...
From: "Carol A. Valentine"
<skywriter@erols.com>
> > by Snake Plissken
> > as told to Carol
A. Valentine
> > Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
> >
http:www.Public-Action.com
> > Copyright, March 2002
> > May
be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
> >
See
> > To hear the bumble planes, visit above URL
>
>
> > March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls
himself
> > "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us
why the passenger
> > lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets
were so small, how
> > remote control was used, why the transponders
were turned off, why
> > the radar tracks of the four planes were
confused, why there was no
> > Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
....
> >
> > By George, I think he's got it!
>
>
> > My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of
days.
> > With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges,
inserted
> > some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My
comments and additions
> > will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what
Snake has to say, keep
> > the following in mind:
> >
>
> "Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be
>
> done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the
impossible
> > depends upon misleading the minds of his
audiences. This, in the
> > main, is done by adding, to a
performance, details of which the
> > spectators are unaware, and
leaving out others which they believe you
> > have not left out.
In short a performance of magic is largely a
> > demonstration of the
universal reliability of certain facts of
> > psychology." (John
Mulholland, "The Art of Illusion," Charles
> > Scribner & Sons,
1944.)
> >
> > In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions
of the 9-11 magicians.
> >
> > ===
> >
> >
Carol,
> >
> > You did some fine research on 9-11. You
came within inches of
> > solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and
now you need the rest
> > of the story. Let me explain by making
a suggestion.
> >
> > Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and
try to keep your eye on just
> > one bee. You can't do it.
You get confused. Think of the 9-11
> > jets as
bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation
> > 911
"Flight of the Bumble Planes."
> >
> > I've worked in
cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the
> > truth.
Substitute information, omit information, scramble the
> > information
out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All
> > four
methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the
> >
clues and show you where they lead.
> >
> > THE CLUES
>
>
> > * First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four
Flights: Many have
> > remarked about the short passenger lists
on the four 911 jets. You
> > might get a low turnout for a 767
or 757 now and then, but four
> > coast-to-coast flights taking off
from the East inside of a few
> > minutes of each other, all with short
passenger lists? Nuts. That's
> > your first clue.
>
>
> > * Second Clue -- First Report of
First WTC Crash: The second clue
> > comes from the first New
York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question
> > about what she
saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the
> >
state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between
> >
their knees before she stopped talking.
> >
> > What did she
say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up.
> > She saw a
small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC
> > tower, the
North tower. She was certain in her description -- most
> >
people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet
> >
and a smaller plane.
> >
> > [ CV cmments:
> > [ In
his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
> > October
25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first
> >
September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter
airplane.
> > It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter
airplane."
> > [ http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
>
>
> > Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in
the
> > "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had
a
> > hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the
viewer
> > felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size
and make
> > of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got
shellacked.
> >
> > * Third clue -- Pentagon
Crash: The first report on NBC said there
> > had been an
explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a
> >
plane.
> >
> > If you were watching ABC, the first reports
cited eyewitnesses who
> > said a business jet had crashed into the
Pentagon. Notice that this
> > description is similar to the
first report about the WTC. A small
> > plane, not a big, round
nosed passenger jet.
> >
> > Then ABC interviewed some media
executive who said he "saw the whole
> > thing" from his car on the
freeway. It was an American Airlines
> > passenger jet.
Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he
> > was
gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the
>
> light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story
paved
> > the way for the official truth.
> >
> > *
Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site. By now
>
> lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the
>
> story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the
problem?
> > The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35
feet between
> > the two jet engines.
> >
> > [ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200> >
> > The hole left by
whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.
> >
> > [ US
News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg> >
> > After the smoke
died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one
> > could see the
plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone --
> > not
steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have
> >
been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen
>
> wing wreckage. But there was none.
> >
> > [ CV
comments:
> > [ I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by
various
> > networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published
just after
> > 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757
debris was visible.
> >
> > [ See the following URLs at the
website of the U.S. Army Military
> > District of Washington, D.C.,
sent to me by researcher John DiNardo,
> >
<jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo
suspects that
> > inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on
9-11. Certainly the
> > damaged section of the building had just
been renovated; explosives
> > would have been easy to install.
]
> >
> > [ http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6> >
> > [ http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/capitolview.html> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5> >
> > [ http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/cars_damaged.html
>
> [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2 ]
> >
> > [The scenes depicted
by the US Army photos are consistent with
> > contemporaneously
published photos in the popular press. See, for
> > example, US
News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.
> >
>
> [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg> > [ and the photo that appeared
in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26,
> 27.
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg> >
> > [ This photograph
below, with caption, appeared on the US Army
> > Military District of
Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates
> > that there was
no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand
> > pounds
of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels,
> >
luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context
>
> scrap of God-knows what was shown by the Pentagon.
> >
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html> > http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0> >
> > [ In the last
several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's
> > work, there
has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of
> > Boeing 757
debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos
> > of
"Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out
>
> the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe
Vialls
> > for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by
endorsing them as
> > real, have surely identified themselves as
members of the fake
> > opposition.
> >
> > [
OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]
> >
> > * Fifth Clue --
Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out
> >
>
> [ Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS,
> http://www.Public_action.com/911/robotplane.html ]
> >
> > the flying
instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77
> > said they
were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever
> > driven
a car ..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and
> >
dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.
> >
> > Yet the
Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before
> > it hit
the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to
> >
make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert
>
> pilots.
> >
> > Something is wrong here. Now "dumb
and dumber" are expert pilots.
> > That is your fifth clue.
>
>
> > * Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point
out, the
> > "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit
information
> > showing the airline names, flight numbers, and
altitude. But the FAA
> > also uses conventional radar, so the
"hijackers" must have known the
> > planes were still visible.
Why would the "hijackers" shut the
> > transponders off, you
asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.
> >
> > ["Did
NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?" Part 1
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]
> >
> > *
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some
>
> of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.
>
> [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.
> >
>
> * Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit: Have a look at
the
> > footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane
almost missed
> > the tower and just managed to hit the corner.
Yet the first plane
> > struck its target dead center.
That's your eighth clue.
> >
> > [ See diagrams from Wag the
WTC website at:
> > [ http://www.Public_Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/southtowerpath.jpg> >
> > HERE'S WHAT
HAPPENED
> >
> > * A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to
look like a United
> > Airlines jet. It had remote controls
installed in it, courtesy of
> > some NORAD types. Call that
plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it
> > parked at a military
airfield for the moment.
> >
> > * The number of the
passengers on each flight was kept artificially
> > low that day.
Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers
> > and show
the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some
> > of
your own operatives in each flight, maybe.
> >
> > *
After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut
> >
down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is
>
> this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say:
"This
> > is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There
is a national
> > emergency. We are under terrorist attack.
Turn off your
> > transponders. Maintain radio silence.
Here is your new flight plan.
> > You will land at [name] military air
base."
> >
> > * The pilots turn off the transponders.
The FAA weenies lose the
> > information which identifies the airline,
the flight number, and the
> > altitude of the planes. Of course
the planes can still be seen on
> > conventional radar, but the planes
are just nameless blips now.
> >
> > * What did the
radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never
> > see the
real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy
> >
wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while
>
> the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd
do
> > that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet
is sent to
> > fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and
longitude. The
> > blips of the two planes merge on the radar
scopes. Alternately, a
> > plane is sent to cross the flight path
of the original plane. Again,
> > the blips merge, just like the
little bees you're watching outside
> > the hive. The original
planes proceed to the military airfield and
> > air traffic control is
thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips
> > ...
>
>
> > That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I
say, we'll
> > never see the radar records so we won't know
exactly.
> >
> > [ For the alleged flight paths of the four
jets, see
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html> > [ For names and locations of
military airfields in the US, try
> > [ http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html> > [ http://w> > [ You can search for a
listing of bases in 9-11 related states by
> > using the search
engine.]
> >
> > * A small remote controlled commuter jet
filled with
> > incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you
like -- is flown
> > into the first WTC tower. That's the plane
the first NBC eyewitness
> > saw.
> >
> > * The
remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like
> > a
United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote
>
> control - without passengers -- and crashed into the second
tower.
> > Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.
>
>
> > Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower?
Because the
> > remote operators were used to smaller, more
maneuverable craft, not a
> > big stubborn passenger jet. The
operators brought the jet in on a
> > tight circle and almost blew it
because those jets do hairpin turns
> > like the Queen Mary. They
brought it in too fast and too close to do
> > the job right and just
hit the corner of the tower.
> >
> > * Then another remote
controlled commuter jet filled with
> > incendiaries/explosives -- a
cruise missile if you like -- hits the
> > Pentagon, in the name of
Flight 77.
> >
> > * Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen.
Trusted media whores "witness"
> > the Pentagon hit and claim it was an
American Airlines Boeing 757,
> > Flight 77. Reporters lie better
than lawyers.
> >
> > * Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights
11, 175, and 77, now at the
> > military airfield, are loaded onto
Flight 93. If you've put some of
> > your own agents aboard, they
stay on the ground, of course.
> >
> > * Flight 93 is taken
aloft.
> >
> > * Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no
difference which.
> > Main deal is to destroy that human meat without
questions. Easiest
> > way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human
flesh, and nobody gets a
> > headline if they find a foot in their
front garden. No mass graves
> > will ever be discovered,
either.
> >
> > * The trail is further confused by issuing
reports that Flight 77 was
> > actually headed towards the White House
but changed its course.
> >
> > * The trail is further
confused by having The Washington Post wax
> > lyrical about the flying
skills of non-existent pilots on a
> > non-existence plane (Flight
77).
> >
> > * The trail is further confused with conflicting
reports and
> > artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The
Presidential Shrub
> > really see the first tower hit on TV while he
was waiting to read the
> > story about the pet goat ....
>
>
> > So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown
up. The
> > other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77)
still exist
> > somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.
>
>
> > The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died
in an
> > airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for
most of
> > them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to
the truth as
> > the news media likes to get anyway, so it
works.
> >
> > WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
> >
> >
So there you have it. Not four planes. More than fourJî
>
>
> > off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo
Flight
> > 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise
missiles.
> > Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight
paths of the
> > original passenger jets.
> >
> > The
four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike
> >
Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote
> >
control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough.
The
> > mimic planes could have been piloted or remote
controlled.
> >
> > Why not just install remote control in
four passenger jets like you
> > described in "NO SUICIDE
PILOTS"? Here's why: You might get remote
> > control gear
installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would
> > not notice,
but that would be more work, more time, and more people.
> > Then you
would have to control your special plane through maintenance
> >
dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that
> >
flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four.
>
> There would be too many chances of things going wrong.
Plane
> > substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the
NORAD
> > insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe
an agent
> > or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make
sure things
> > go smooth. That should not be too difficult
because NORAD has sent
> > lots of its people over to the FAA to work
on the FAA radars.
> >
> > [ CV commens:
> > [ Gen.
Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services
> > Committee
on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved
> > manpower on
the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA
> > to operate
these radars." Cited in "Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide'
> > Jets?" Part
2. See Eberhart testimony
at:
ww.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
> >
> > Some people
have suggested the original passenger planes were used
> > with the
flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision
> > coordinates
for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that
> > way,
but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight
> >
computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight
>
> computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to
>
> follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting
for
> > cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies
smooth and
> > gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky
corrections.
> >
> > You know Flight 175 was not on that
system when it hit the south
> > tower because it came in fast (they
say) in a tight hooking circle
> > that almost missed the tower.
An autopilot wouldn't make that
> > mistake. The crash of flight
175 was not a preprgrammed flight
> > computer finding the optimum
path. What you see there in the path of
> > 175 is a real-time
controller fighting the physics of flight - and
> > almost losing
it.
> >
> > You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run
explanation, so I
> > don't have to analyze that again.
>
>
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html]
> >
> > I've seen
another lame attempt to explain away what happened:
> > Supposedly
AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual
> >
electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them
> >
crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the
>
> electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap
>
> heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and
no
> > remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and
which
> > to leave intact.
> >
> > OTHER
DETAILS
> >
> > * Pentagon Security Photos: On
March 7 CNN released four
> > photographs taken by Pentagon security
camera on September 11, 2001.
> > Look at the photos:
>
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html> >
> > The Washington
Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry,
> > white object
near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a
> > few feet
about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American
> > Airlines plane
is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on
> > Pentagon,"
March 7, 2002. )
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670_2002Mar7.html
> >
>
> Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is
not
> visible.
> >
> > * Fireman's Video of
First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the
> > plane that few into
the North tower was small. This is corroborated
> > by the
fireman's video taken on September 11:
> >
> >
http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf> >
> > In that clip, the
camera shows a fireman with other workers casually
> > discussing some
street work. The fireman looks up over his left
> > shoulder,
then behind him, as though he is following a sound.
> > The camera
follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location,
> > then
quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another
> >
corridor in the surrounding buildings.
> >
> > Why does the
cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard
> > the
impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the
>
> air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.
>
>
> > In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact
site that
> > grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a
few seconds, the
> > flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At
that moment, the camera
> > shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of
WTC North.
> >
> > If the wings of a large jet made that gash,
the gash should not be S
> > shaped. The gash should be a
straight line like the wings of the
> > jet. But more
important: if the impact of the jet made
> > the gash, the gash
should appear at the moment of impact when the
> > camera is first
drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the
> > smoke and
flame.
> >
> > [ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg> > [ http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]
> >
> > * The
Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged
> >
hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker
> >
scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives
> >
is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still
>
> alive, so let's move on.
> >
> > It would be easy for the
9-11 planners to collect the names of people
> > with Muslim-sounding
names who were taking flying lessons around the
> > country. Just
before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then
> > mid-air phone
calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never
> > aboard the
planes. That would work.
> >
> > As you and many people
have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on
> > the passenger lists
of the four flights. The hijackers names don't
> > even appear on
the list of passengers released by United on September
> > 12 -- the
list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.
> >
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]
> >
> > Sure it was
careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger
> > lists, but
nobody's perfect.
> >
> > Just to show you how scripted the
Flight 93 hijacking thing was,
> > think about the alleged phone calls
from the passengers on Flight 93
> > to their next of kin in the
moments before the crash. Supposedly,
> > they learned of the
attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their
> > handy cell phones,
and they figured out their own plane was hijacked
> > for a similar
purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the
> > plane away
from the hijackers.
> >
> > According to the Dallas Morning
News: "The fourth time Thomas Burnett
> > Jr. phoned his wife, Deena,
he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're
> > going to die. There's
three of us who are going to do something
> > about it.'"
>
>
> > [Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought
back,"
> > September 17, 2001.
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]
> >
> > Heroic,
wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of
>
> modern America. A high school basketball star, a college
rugby
> > player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ....
>
>
> > But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew
their deaths
> > were inevitable, according to some family members with
whom they
> > spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more
to die with
> > them." It makes a better story, of course.
"Suicide Heroes Defeat
> > Suicide Hijackers."
> >
>
> Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded
at
> > knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were
being
> > held," according to the same report. They weren't
dead. If the
> > passengers got control from the hijackers,
couldn't the crew fly the
> > plane? Why didn't those brave
heroes say things like, "There's a
> > chance we might save this
boat"? But they said, "I know we're going
> > to die."
>
>
> > Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull
sessions like
> > they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the
Dog". And the
> > American public has been trained on weak plots
for decades on prime
> > time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way
out of a wet paper
> > bag. It spoils the show.
>
>
> > Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that
the
> > passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation
was too much,
> > so they put it in the passenger dialog, too.
And that's how you know
> > the cell phone calls are just theater, not
fact.
> >
> > By the way, if I was planning this operation,
I'd put some fictitious
> > names on the passenger list, so when the
flight went down, the media
> > could interview fake relatives.
Like that Operation Northwoods plan
> > in which a fake Cuban jet would
shoot down a fake American passenger
> > jet. Whoever planned
that must have planned to use fake grieving
> > relatives, too.
>
>
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]
> >
> > And then of
course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice
> >
simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from
Flight
> > 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the
truth of a
> > plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer,
with the pregnant
> > wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just
got a message from
> > the answering service.
> >
> >
["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen
> >
Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE) http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]
> >
> > Is this all
too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people
> > would
conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes.
This
> > current war will go on for years and blot out one of the
world's
> > great religions, legitimize military rule in the United
States,
> > redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the
entire power
> > structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to
make it happen is
> > ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a
nation that is willing to
> > be deceived.
> >
> >
The problem with people like you when you try to understand events
> >
like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping
out
> > the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That
is one of the
> > things you have to train out of a soldier.
>
>
> > But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't
flinch at
> > the killing. He just takes that into the plans like
one more or one
> > less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the
enemy or Americans or
> > even
> > himself, it doesn't matter
because sometimes he has to do that to
> > win. He's trained that
way.
> >
> > The only thing that matters is the
Objective. Whatever a soldier has
> > to do to win the Objective,
that is what he has to do. All of this
> > false piety about
suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans
> > would do that
if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't
> > well
trained.
> >
> > So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or
five thousand
> > civilians, you just do it in the best way that will
help the
> > Objective.
> >
> > ===
> >
--
> > Carol A. Valentine
> > President, Public Action,
Inc.
> > http://www.Public-Action.com> > See the handiwork of the
world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI:
> > Visit the Waco
Holocaust Electronic Museum
> >
> >
911 Lies exposed at http://www.public-action.com/> >
> > * Did NORAD
Send The "Suicide" Jets
> > Parts 1 &
2, "Inside Job" and 'Dumb Blondes"
> > * Operation 911: NO
SUICIDE PILOTS
> > * The Taliban Home Video
> > *
Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW
> > * 911 Terror: Muslims
Suspend Laws of Physics
> > * Operation Northwoods: The
Counterfeit
> > * Osama bin Surplus
> > * Osama
bin CIA Agent
> > * Press Uses Actors In War On Islam
>
> * Anti-war.com: Slyly Justifying War on Islam
> >
>
>
>