APFNRe: 911 Overview: Our take on the 911 eventsThu Feb 12 12:27:15 200464.140.158.155Did you send this to the folks below.... I hope so, cause we need to all geton the same path...cross networking is the key.... I will also post this toAPFN MSG BOARD..... to network and inform! Keep up yourwonderful work! apfn@apfn.org Rosalee Grable webfairy@thewebfairy.com wrote:Re: 911 Overview: Our take on the 911 events What crap. Invisable planes and Al CIA-DUH shenanagans.. The debunker crowd has stopped trying to defend the official story and instead are presenting fictional planes and fictional hijackers as real in order to keep the dupes duped. Flight 11 is nowhere in sight. http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane It is a fiction sold a gullible populace. They can't salvage the entire Official Story, so they stick to plumping up notions of planes turned into missiles by sandpeople who hate our freedom. This is a crock. It was high tech secret weaponry of the Technotronic Era combined with the complicent media brewing fresh lies daily. http://911hoax.com 911 Overview: Our take on the 911 events http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/911first.html On this page is our take on the official story, how it's changed, the unofficial investigation and what the truth could be. Would you dispute any of the facts here or in the key articles? Go to the bottom to email us with objections. So far we have had very few. Prologue According to the official story, on 11 September 2001, 19 arab hijackers crashed four airliners in America as part of an ongoing war against the US, organised by the Al Qaida terrorist network, headed by Osama Bin Laden. They were able to succeed because they had a $60b organisation behind them, they had operated with invisible sleeper cells, they had the clever idea of turning off the plane's transponders, they took America completely by surprise. Because the CIA had ceased any contact with Al Qaida no warnings were received. In case there was any doubt as to the perpetrators, one of the hijackers' passports was soon found in the ruins of the WTC along with flight manuals in the hijackers cars. For about 24 hours there was a confusing flurry of reports: put options had been placed by mystery financial players on the stricken airlines a week before 911, bombs were heard going off in the WTC, a truck bomb was reported at the Pentagon well before the plane attack there, the hijackers had aroused suspicions at their flight schools, there were surprisingly few people on the planes or killed at the WTC. Many commentators agreed that a state must have helped Bin Laden. Critics asked why the USAF failed for two hours to scramble fighters. Some dared to mock Bush's strange movements on the day of the attacks. But within a week the Washington media were speaking with one voice. All dissent on the facts was a conspiracy theory. The official story was now agreed: the fanatics from Al Qaida did it alone or possibly with help from Iraq. The FBI rapidly identified the culprits and many reports which by implication confirmed the official story appeared in the Washington media. It seemed an open and shut case. No doubt an investigation would clear up the details. The media moved on. To war in Afghanistan. By now it is clear that by 12 September 2001 a political team apparently caught gobsmacked by the attacks a day earlier had already made dramatic long term decisions. The immediate response to 911 was a vague but potent declaration of war against terrorists and rogue states, which has turned out since to be much more than rhetoric. It has emerged that the plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq were in place BEFORE the 911 attacks. Within a week or two came huge budget hikes for the intelligence agencies that had failed so spectacularly. Also, planned before the attacks, came radical changes to the US legal system in the form of the US Patriot Act which effectively abolishes key human rights provisions of the US Constitution. top No enquiry But the final 911 act never happened. In contrast to, say, the Kennedy assassination, there has been no comprehensive enquiry into the facts of the attacks, the background or indeed the remedy. Even the secret 2002 Congressional Intelligence enquiry was bitterly opposed by the White House with complaints from congressmen of obstruction and warnings of more bombshells to come. The current 911 Commission has been circumscribed with a budget said to be smaller than the average aircraft accident, security controls which have denied commission members access even to documents one of them helped write, the failure to question anyone on oath, a tight timetable set down by statute, government officials only appearing with minders, and a voting system that gives republican loyalists a veto. In any case the commission has acted so far on the presumption that the official story is true. Despite the tidal wave of emotion, there was no political coming together in America. Within weeks of his inauguration Bush had thrown away the compassionate conservative label which brought him to the White House. After 911 things only got worse with massive handouts to corporate welfare recipients, the shredding of constitutional freedoms and the suggestion that anyone who opposed this far right pre-set war agenda was unpatriotic. Candidate Bush implied that he was a new type of Republican, not to be compared to his predecessors. Post-911, in an open challenge to the rule of law President Bush appointed officials convicted of Iran-Contra offenses to senior posts in his administration. As the shock of the 911 attacks wore off, people began to notice that Bush has gained big time from 911. Doubts over the truthfulness of the official 911 story grew. The doubts are not confined to the traditional enemies of Washington. In Germany respected elder statesmen Horst Ehmke and Andreas von Bulow have said they don't believe the official 911 story. At least one active US serviceman has been reprimanded for saying in public what many believe privately, and activists are saying openly on websites like truthout (Democrat) and apfn (Republican): the President knew about it and let it happen, even maybe helped it happen. top Evidence withheld The doubts have been fed by the FBI policy of withholding evidence even when it should be easy to release it and confirm the official account. For instance, although critics say the Pentagon attack was suspicious, all footage of it has been confiscated, and a year later the only publicly available pictures seems to show a small plane or missile. Again, even the fire authorities, hardly a hotbed of conspiracy theorists, angrily criticised the abrupt scrapping of the remains of the WTC steel pillars by Mayor Guilliani, blocking the investigation of how four inch thick construction grade steel could collapse so completely. What possible reason could the US government have to foster dissent in the US and abroad if there is nothing to hide? It is part of the folklore of US politics: if you don't have anything to hide, then don't behave as if you have. Bush is aware that the 'war on terror' is being undermined by widely held 'conspiracy theories'. We know this because he took precious time in his UN General Assembly speech in autumn 2001 to say so. (Tony Blair has characteristically taken the already empty expression to new absurdities by asserting that the oil motive in Iraq is a conspiracy theory). With the shock and fear wearing off, Americans of all political hues who share the Founding Fathers' suspicion of government activity abroad have remembered that America's previous publicly revealed wars have begun with suspicious incidents or outright fraud. Either the defences have been suspiciously relaxed (Pearl Harbour, 911), or there has been a complete fabrication (Gulf of Tonkin incident, USS Maine) or provocative risk-taking (Lusitania). Many Democrats remember that every Republican Administration since the second world war has been tainted by a contempt for democracy ('McCarthyism') through political dirty tricks and perjury (Watergate) to the waging of a murderous terrorist war in direct defiance of laws passed only months earlier (Iran-contra). But surely it was inconceivable that the US government would effectively bomb its own people? Not at all. A deadly email went all over the internet drawing attention to the discovery of a Pentagon document on the proposed Operation Northwoods. It is undeniable that Pentagon bosses explicitly suggested a plot probably involving a mass murder of US citizens to justify an attack on Cuba. top Official story changes Most people dependent on the corporate media in US/UK are still unaware of these disturbing precedents. But in December 2001 the official story began to wobble in the official media. The anthrax accusations against Iraq were discredited as US scientists proved that the anthrax used in the murderous attacks on key Democrat senators Daschle and Leahy came not from Iraq but from the US military-industrial complex. But the White House was heading in the opposite direction. With Osama bin Laden still on the loose, and the vast majority of his alleged fearsome resources still unaccounted for, Iraq was suddenly promoted to enemy number one. Bin Laden was now 'an irrelevance' (Rumsfeld). Even the unsuspicious began to smell a rat. These were only eddies in comparison with the earthquake that threatened to topple Bush in May 2002 with the leak from the secret Congressional enquiry that as the New York Post put it, 'BUSH KNEW' about the 911attacks. The White House was forced by FBI leaks to admit that in the now famous `August briefing` Bush was warned by the CIA that Al Qaida might use hijacked planes to attack targets in the US. When asked on September 14 if there had been any warnings Cheney had lied to the media with this reply: 'not really, nothing specific'. Blair and Rice had described the attacks as `unthinkable`. As fast as it came, this flurry of accusations was mysteriously forgotten by the official US media. But shortly after this Bush's long awaited speech on the Middle East gobsmacked the world. The Oslo accords were dead, and in flat contradiction to Bush/Powell positions of only weeks earlier Sharon was now given a green light to do anything he wanted on the West Bank. Cynics concluded that Bush was being blackmailed by pro-Likud American media corporations, who knew all along that he was complicit in the 911 attacks. It was therefore no surprise that after Bush caved in to Sharon, the veil of wilful amnesia came down again. top Who helped the hijackers? Unlike the Kennedy assassination, there is no suggestion that the hijackers acted alone. 911 was not a lone-nut street level crime, it was a conspiracy. At the heart of any enquiry into the attacks lies the simple question: who were the hijackers and who helped the hijackers? Any answer is inherently a conspiracy theory. The official story that Al Qaida pulled off the attacks entirely without help is probably the most unlikely conspiracy theory to be believed in mainstream politics since the bogus Protocols Of the Elders of Zion was used to attack Jewish people in the 20th century. Al Qaida certainly had the motive, but did they have the capacity to carry out the 911 attacks unaided? The skills needed were such that American security experts, trying to blame Iraq, argued strongly that they must have had the help of a state intelligence service. At the time of the 911 attacks it was confidently expected that Al Qaida would make more such coups. But so far this has not happened. Meanwhile the news has surfaced that far from abandoning Islamic terorism, the US had links with Al Qaida (in Bosnia and Kossovo) while ex MI6 agent David Shayler has revealed that MI6 planned to pay Al Qaida to murder Libya's Colnel Ghadafi in the mid nineties. One thing is certain. The terrorists were aided by an comprehensive US defence stand-down involving the FBI the CIA and NORAD which was the result of policy decisions of the Bush administration in the preceding summer. The question at the heart of the 911 story is: Was there merely misjudgement and incompetence or was there an intent to help the hijack succeed? In answering this you, the reader, will be balancing two factors. The first is the likelihood that the Bush White House would participate in such a criminal enterprise. The answer form the mainstream media is that they would not and this is probably why they have ignored all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, the verdict of history is that the media are wrong: wrong about the US government and wrong about the Bush dynasty in particular. The second question is: are the proven levels of incompetence and lies about the incompetence credible or not. Just how incompetent could people be who's lifelong careers were in the national security business? Recently the second 911 official investigation, the 911 Commission, highlighted something even more sinister than gross incompetence, something you would have to call proactive incompetence. The Commission has suggested reasons for the astonishing hour-long failure of any planes to be scrambled to intercept the attack on the Pentagon: no planes were available, the NORAD radar was pointing the wrong way (sic). But the more likely explanation is even more damaging. In June 2001 NORAD, charged with protecting the skies over America, changed its rules in a critical way. Instead of interception of potentially hostile planes being automatic, interception now required the approval of the Pentagon. Where was Rumsfeld on the morning of the attacks? According to the official story he was in the Pentagon, taking calls, blissfully unaware of anything happening at all until the plane hit... top Why not a false flag operation? Lawyers distinguish between prima facie evidence - appearances - and proof. If your neighbour comes out of his house dripping with blood and his wife is dead it is a good bet that this prima facie evidence will develop into proof. But infiltration and false flag operations - where an agency ma ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9/11 Attack On America http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm 9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-20-04/discussion.cgi.67.html Cover-Up: The Real Mission of the 911 Commission http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-12-04/discussion.cgi.40.html Sept. 11 widow: Government hides truth http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-22-04/discussion.cgi.6.html “THE BUSH REGIME ENGINEERED 9-11” http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-07-04/discussion.cgi.27.html 9/11 CIA INVOLVEMENT CONFIRMED! http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-21-04/discussion.cgi.9.html SEC Probe Of 911 Stock Dealings Reveals ... Guess Who? http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-11-04/discussion.cgi.53.html Arrests at Ground Zero - "9/11 Solidarity Actions" http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-14-04/discussion.cgi.27.html CLG 9/11 Investigation and "Oddities" Information Zone — CLG 9/11, Thu Feb 12 12:55
9/11 Attack On America http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm 9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-20-04/discussion.cgi.67.html Cover-Up: The Real Mission of the 911 Commission http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-12-04/discussion.cgi.40.html Sept. 11 widow: Government hides truth http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-22-04/discussion.cgi.6.html “THE BUSH REGIME ENGINEERED 9-11” http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-07-04/discussion.cgi.27.html 9/11 CIA INVOLVEMENT CONFIRMED! http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-21-04/discussion.cgi.9.html SEC Probe Of 911 Stock Dealings Reveals ... Guess Who? http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-11-04/discussion.cgi.53.html Arrests at Ground Zero - "9/11 Solidarity Actions" http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-14-04/discussion.cgi.27.html
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES
