Images and Symbols -- Deconstructing the Iraq War

And this too:

Media Published Fake Passenger Lists

MEDIA PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.


As everyone knows, on Sept 11 2001, 5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.

Any crime of this magnitude, is - or should be - subject to rigourous examination by investigative and law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI. In any crime involving the illegal use of a plane, it is obvious that one of the first investigative steps taken by such authorities is to find out who was on the plane.

This is not a difficult thing to do. Airlines keep well organized records of everybody on any particular flight. The apparent ID of anyone on that flight - regardless of whether they used a true or false ID - should be immediately available to authorities.

Unless authorities decide that disclosure of such information may jeopardize the investigation, it should also be easily available to the media. It should be as simple as an exchange of faxes or emails between the media and either the airline involved or one of the relevant authorities to which the airline has released the information. Or possibly printed copies handed out at a press conference.

In relation to the alleged AA11, there has never been any indication that such information has been withheld for security reasons. We have been given the clear impression that the information relating to exactly who was on that plane has been made available to us via the media - which presumably sourced it in the manner suggested above. If the information had been withheld, one would expect that to be known.

Supporters of the official story seem to support this view. In the face of mounting evidence that none of the Sept 11 crashes were actually caused by the planes alleged to have been involved (some of this evidence is linked at the conclusion of this article), supporters of the official story will often reply with a demand to know exactly what happened to the alleged passengers, illogically imagining the lack of a specific answer to represent a flaw in the no planes/substitute planes argument. Implicit in this demand is the belief that there is solid documentation of who the passengers were.

Anybody can put up a website, do an interview or send an email, claiming to be family or friend of a plane victim. But the only credible, official source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available. One can`t demand an explanation of what happened to particular people alleged to be on the flight unless one can prove that they were on the flight. Implicit in the official story is the assumption that such information has been established in the public domain by the media.

It is therefore incumbent upon any serious investigator to properly examine such passenger lists and ensure that they match with other alleged facts we have been given, and with the processes by which one would expect the information to have been sourced.

In this context, the following statement by ``USA Today`` in relation to its published passenger lists is of some concern.

``Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday`s terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement.``
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm

This is a very strange way to source such information. Why not get it from American Airlines or the FBI? If neither of these were consulted, how did USAT know who`s ``family members, friends, co-workers`` to go looking for? Or if AA and the FBI were the first source of inquiry, why a partial list from hearsay sources?
Why ``local law enforcement`` rather than the feds, who would surely have any complete database of the victims? This statement appears to make no sense at all, except to confirm that the obvious sources where any media outlet should be looking - American Airlines and the FBI - seem to have been left out of the process. And it gets more ridiculous.
At http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight11.htm
USAT gives the following bio of one of the alleged victims.

``Tom McGuinness, of Portsmouth, N.H., was co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, an official at his church confirmed...He said church pastors were with his wife when she was notified Tuesday morning. ``

Surely American Airlines, the FAA or the FBI would be the most reliable sources of who was co-piloting the plane. A family member, who`s ID can be verified would be a reasonably good unofficial source, but first one needs to find out which family one is looking for. In the process of ascertaining that, one should have already received official confirmation. This source is someone who claims to know such a family member - a second hand attribution to a source which is not official anyway, and should be subject to confirmation from AA, The FAA or the FBI.

Why does USAT cite the church administrator as the source, indeed the confirmation of the information, when they can`t have found out anything about how to find the church administrator without first consulting the official source, which could comfirm it far more authoritively ? The indications are that the church administrator contacted USAT with this claim, and USAT accepted this hearsay at face value. If so, this is very poor journalism.

One can`t be certain of the exact processes employed by USAT, but its fair to say that there are strong indications that its passenger list is based on hearsay, because they had some kind of problem in obtaining the routine documentation which one would expect to be available, but failed to give a direct disclosure of what that problem was.

By contrast, CNN, introducing its passenger list ,says

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html

``authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below.``

This is a clear indication that CNN claims to have sourced its passenger information as one would expect.

The first list passenger list for AA11 which I studied was that presented by CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons.

If so, why is said that American Airlines released a ``partial list`` ?

For the moment, lets give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume this to be a complete list (in contradiction to what they wrote) of the 87 innocents alleged to be on board - a list sourced from AA, whether directly, or indirectly via a law enforcement agency. A reading of the names suggests that the CNN list may actually represent only 86 people - one name duplicated with different spelling.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan are listed as two different people. There is a brief bio for Kaplan, but nothing for Caplin, except the home town.

Perhaps this is just an enormous co-incidence and two people with such names actually were on the flight ? Lets suspend judgment for the moment, while we investigate further.

I then checked the passenger list provided by USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm
Again, it is described as a partial list. It contains 86 names. - one less than the 87 which should represent a complete list. Robin Caplin is missing. However, two other names from the CNN list - Jude Larson and Natalie Larson - are also missing, and the list contains two names which are not on the CNN list.

Kelly Booms and Pendyala Vamsikrishna.

Lets think through the possibilities.
1) Two of the names from the collective passenger lists are fictitious.
2) Neither list is complete, and the complete list of innocents only emerges from a collective viewing of the lists - as strongly implied by the term ``partial list`` used in relation to both lists. If so, then we have 89 innocents. If this is the case, there can`t be 5 hijackers for a total of 92 people. And yet nobody seems to dispute these two figures.

At http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/victims_list.htm

We find a list of AA 11 victims published on Sept 13 2001, which, judging by the introduction, may have come from exactly same the source as that used by USAT today. It begins thus.

``By The Associated Press. Partial list of those killed in Tuesday`s terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement. ``

Compare it with the introduction to the USAT list.

``Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday`s terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement.``

However this list is quite different to that published by USAT - or CNN . While not giving any summation, it contains the names of 89 alleged innocents and introduces two new names - Robert Jalbert and James Roux. Vamsikrishna and Booms are the two names not included from the collective CNN and USAT lists. Since it publishes 89 names as a ``partial list `` this implies a minimum of 90 innocents aboard the plane.
From the three combined lists, we now have 91 alleged innocents and 5 hijackers for an apparently undisputed summation of 92. The Boston Daily list ,in isolation, implies a minimum of 95 aboard, while the collective lists imply 96 - if one is to believe in 5 hijackers. Alternatively, there must be four fictitious innocents.

This Boston Daily list also contains ``Heath Smith``, which would appear to be a substitute for ``Heather Smith`` named on the previous two lists.

A year later, the Boston Daily published a very different list, seemingly without acknowledging any previous error.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/victims/flight11.htm

It contains only 87 names. Jalbert ,Roux,Caplin and the two Larsons have been dropped for Booms,Vamsikrishna and another new name - Waleed Iskander - who is not alleged to be one of the terrorists. Heath Smith has become Heather Lee Smith. A person named on every other list as Antonio Montoya has become Antonio Jesus Montoya Valdes. Peter Hashem has been replaced by Peter el-Hachem.From the bio, it appears to be a different name for the same person While the odd spelling discrepancy or missing hyphen is quite plausible, this much of a name change is stretching the credibility a little. I can believe that ``Green`` could become ``Greene`` or ``Catherine`` become ``Katherine``, but ``Hashem`` becoming ``el- Hachem`` - from an official passenger list - is more difficult to accept.

This is most unsatisfactory. The combined lists now name 92 innocents, so if one is to believe in 92 aboard, 5 of which were hijackers, we now have 5 fictitious innocents.
We have three major mainstream media outlets, publishing 4 lists which all contradict each other about who was on board, when this information should have ultimately come from one official,well organized source.

I checked another list - from the Guardian dated sept 13 ,2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551423,00.html

This also claims 92 people aboard. It published only 75 names, saying

``This is a preliminary, partial list of passengers aboard the flight whose next of kin have been notified. Some families asked the airline not to include their loved ones` names: these do not appear. ``

Fair enough. So this list is unable to be fully tested for consistency with either of the other four conflicting lists. However, it does agree on the number of people aboard. 92. This creates a real headache for the official story. Is the figure of 92 correct? Should it be really be 97 - the 92 collectively listed innocents plus 5 hijackers? If so, why is everyone saying 92 ? Or were there no hijackers? If so, why is everybody saying 5 ? Or are 5 of these names fictitious ? If so,why ?

The Guardian list also has Heath Smith instead of Heather Smith, and Hashem rather than el-Hachem.

There`s another problem. If AA released only 75 names on Sept 13, how did the Boston Daily mange to publish 89 on the same day ? Where did they get the extra names that the airline was still withholding ?

Now the list from NBC
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/victims/default.asp?p=5

It lists 87 names for a summation of 92, and is the same as the USAT list, except for the addition of Iskander. That is - the same as the anniversary list from the Boston Daily.

I checked another mainstream media source - PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/sept11/victims/aa11.html

which entitles its list `` One year later. Remembering the victims.``

This agrees with the NBC and Boston anniversary lists.

Lets review the problems so far.

From five mainstream media outlets we have four conflicting lists.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan on the same flight is difficult to believe, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names.

The lists can`t agree on the correct names for three of the passengers - Hashem/el- Hachem, Heath/Heather Smith, and Antonio Montoya/Valdez .

There are collectively 92 innocents and 5 hijackers for a total of 92 aboard.

So these are the possibilities
a) 5 of the innocents are fictitious
b)There were no hijackers
c) Some of these people were the real hijackers
d) There were 97 people aboard.

At this point, I will clarify what I mean by ``fictitious``. It may be that the extra names represent real people, who are missing and presumed dead. It may be that they have family and friends who honestly believe that the missing person boarded a flight called American Airlines 11. That`s a matter for further research. But for five of these individuals who have been listed, (although we can`t at this stage specify who ) the belief that they were on AA11 is proven to be false - unless one is to accept one of the other possibilities above.

The Washington Post from Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18970-2001Sep12

Introduces its list as

``American Airlines partial passenger lists``

and then lists 89 names, (no hijackers) implying a minimum of 95 aboard. Once again, how did it get 89 names on Sept 12, if AA was still withholding some of them on Sept 13 ?

Those missing are Iskander, Vamsikrihna and Jalbert. This doesn`t even agree with the missing three from the Boston Daily`s first list of 89, published the day after. The missing names there were Iskander, Vamsikrishna and Booms. So even if it were to be argued that the Boston Daily and the Washington Post somehow found a source of which the Guardian was unaware, their lists still don`t match.

Fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34223,00.html

lists only 81 names. It gives no summation and introduces the list as

``Confirmed on board American Airlines Flight 11 Boston to Los Angeles: ``

perhaps implying that this is only a preliminary list and that a complete list is still awaiting confirmation. The problem is that this report is dated Sept 20, 2001. Why does it take more than 9 days to achieve the simple task of obtaining an official passenger list? Perhaps the story about AA only releasing 75 names on Sept 12 is true, and that by Sept 20, this had risen to 81. If so, then those who were publishing 89 names on Sept 12 and 13 have some explaining to do. But if they were telling the truth, then the Guardian has some explaining to do, and so does Fox in relation to why it was only able to confirm 81 names more than a week later. And yet, even those who were publishing 89 names were calling them partial lists and disagreeing on the names. Someone is fibbing.

At http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/12/133231.shtml

dated Sept 12, 2001, ``NewsMax.com introduces its passenger list thus, appearing to support the Guardian`s version of how the information was being released.

``American Airlines Wednesday released a partial list of passengers and crewmembers aboard the two flights downed by terrorist acts in New York and Washington. The following is a list of passengers whose next-of-kin have been notified. American has honored the requests of those families who have asked that their loved ones` names not be included. ``

Note that like the Guardian, it does not claim to withheld the names itself. AA didn`t supply the missing names.

It publishes 77 names, including Heath Smith, not Heather. And Hashem, not el-Hachem. This would appear to be the identical source as the Guardian. So why did the Guardian - the following day - publish two less names? The lists are identical except for these two - Judy Laroque and Carlos Montoya - missing from the Guardian list.

The same intro as NewsMax with a matching passenger list to NewsMax appears at

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/12/story23539.asp also dated sept 12.

and also at

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2001_Sept_12/78169846/p1/article.jhtml

and again at http://yellowhawk33.tripod.com/html/powmia.html

Except that this list is identical to the Guardian. 75 names, with Laroque and Carlos Montoya omitted. Well...almost identical. Heath Smith has become Heather Smith.

Even more puzzling in relation to Smith, is why large news agencies such as CNN and USAT who one would surely expect to have also received this early list, made the same mistake in relation to Smith, naming him as Heather.(Unless Heather is correct and sources such as the Guardian and NewsMax somehow made Heather into Heath.)

If this is alleged to be simply a typo, why are nearly all of the other names consistently free of typos or variations (other than who was included ) in list after list ? Why does every office typist develop a severe case of dyslexia or fumble fingers every time Smith`s name comes up ? In isolation, this problem would strongly indicate that some news sources are just copying from other news sources. Someone initially made a mistake in copying Smiths name, and this mistake got passed on to some other lists. But that theory doesn`t stand up to scrutiny. If different media outlets are simply copying each others lists - without acknowledgment - why are nearly none of them the same ?

Whatever the answer to this mystery, we can confidently state that media is not publishing any kind of reliable, official documentation. These lists are an appalling shambles, not worth the paper that they`re not written on.

This site http://www.wwnfsept11.com/AmericanAirlinesFlight11Victims.htm

makes no comment on the total number aboard, but if you count the names you`ll find 88 innocent victims. It`s the same as the CNN list with the addition of Iskander.
The authors of the site do not identify themselves or their sources in any way, so I went to the home page

http://www.wwnfsept11.com

which also gave no real information about the authors or the sources.
Where did this list come from? Whoever put it together has not even uncritically copied one of the previously examined lists ( while failing to source it). They`ve created a new combination of names from the combined lists. Or if they`ve uncritically copied it without acknowledgment from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches, then we have yet another contradictory list. Why does it imply 93 aboard ?

At this point it is worth doing some searching to see if there`s any significant disputation of the figures of 92 aboard, including 5 hijackers.

In relation to the five hijackers, it would appear not. The 5 hijacker story is so integral to the official myth, that it`s not worth linking the sources which claim it, and I can`t find anything which disputes it

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_flight_11

which describes itself as an encyclopedia about Sept 11, is a link to what is confidently described as a ``flight manifest `` for A11, although it gives no source for this information. Clicking on this link takes one to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Plane_casualties

which introduces AA 11 as having 93 aboard, including 5 hijackers. The list does contain the names of 5 suspected hijackers (All Arabic names) , so there should be 88 innocents.It specifies this directly by stating

``93 people: 82 passengers (including 5 hijackers), 9 flight attendants, 2 pilots ``

This makes 11 crew and 77 innocent passengers. 88 innocents in total.

But if you count the names, there`s only 92 - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents, making a mockery of the rather official sounding title of ``flight manifest.`` The missing names are Caplin, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux , Jalbert and Iskander. The reason why six names have been dumped from the collective list of 92 to make 87 is that this list has a new name - Lana Tu. So we now have - collectively - 93 innocents and five hijackers for a total of 92 or 93 aboard.

Here are just a few of the sources which agree on the summation of 92 aboard.Most of them are sites with reasonably good reputations as reliable sources of information. None of them represent sources which question the official story in any way.

Crash database.com
http://www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata_crashdatabase.cgi?cgifunction=Search&Date=2001

US govt info/resources
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blattack0911.htm

Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nymain122362150sep12,0,7355100.story?coll=ny-homepage-top-utility

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html

Massport press release
http://www.massport.com/about/press01/press_news_advisory2.html

Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html

Airsafe.com
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/american.htm

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/american_text091101.htm

Washington Post
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/trade091101.htm

Airdisaster.com
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=09112001&airline=American+Airlines

Aviation Safety Network
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-0.htm

WiredNews
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,46740,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

Times-Herald Record
http://www.recordonline.com/adis/62/stories/timeline.htm

The Straits Times.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/webspecial/WTC/timeline2.html

World Statesman
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/index2.html

Biblia Vividia
http://biblia.com/islam/newyork.htm

Higher Praise.com News
http://www.higherpraise.org/news/ArchivedNews4.htm

http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html?node=1535

http://www.ezl.com/~fireball/Disaster.htm

So, if we have universal agreement that there were 92 aboard - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents - why can no-one agree on who those 87 innocents were? Which 6 of the 93 names are fictitious ?

It appears that some spin doctor became partially aware of this problem, and tried to solve it by putting up another of these hearsay sites - again failing to provide identification or sources.

http://www.inmemoriamonline.net/List_AA11.html

According to this list, there were 90 innocents aboard, and 5 hijackers, for a summation of 95. Not a word is said about the universally accepted figure of 92. This is simply swept aside as if the figure had never existed. It publishes 90 names - 90 of the 93 collectively published in all of the other conflicting lists. But where did this list come from ? The site has not copied from any of the previously examined mainstream media sites. Or if its copied (without providing documentation), from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches , then we have yet another contradictory list. But since this site broke basic documentation protocol, by providing no sources, we are entitled to assume the worst. That they fabricated their own list, by cobbling together 90 names from other collective lists - indicating that they were well aware of the discrepancies, but failed to note three of the names - and then fabricated the summation of 95 aboard to try to make the figures add up - hoping that no-one would notice.

The missing names are Jalbert, Tu and Vamsikrishna

At
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/deathnotice_private.asp?idMemorial=1317

is a list from ``ObituryRegistry.com which describes itself as `` a service of AmericanMemorials.com``

Upon first viewing of the site, its not immediately apparent what the official status, if any, of this site is.Since anyone can post anything they like on the internet, one needs to check these things carefully. So I followed some of the links to find out more about the site and its authors, and its official status, if any. I clicked the link for AmericanMemorials.com which took me here

http://www.americanmemorials.com/

It describes itself as the ``The internet`s most complete database of current obituaries and death notices. Searchable by name,city and state, keywords and more.``

It invites one to create one`s own memorial for for $US49.95. Following various links around the site gives no indication that it is anything other than a commercial operation, with no official status. So it appears as if anybody could create a memorial to anyone- real or fictitious - as long as they came up with $49.95. So lets have a look at the list for AA11.

It lists 90 innocents, and introduces two new names. Bill Weems and Timothy Ward. So we now have 95 alleged innocents. Those missing from this list are Tu, Booms, Vamsikrishna, Jalbert and Roux.

There are now a minimum of 8 fictitious innocents -unless someone wants to suggest that there were 100 people aboard in total -or else get creative with the practical application of abstract maths and suggest that the plane was hijacked by a group of Arabs numbering minus three, making the total passenger load 92 - in which case the media owes an explanation for why it keeps publishing 5 names for these minus three individuals.

Someone is fibbing.

Here is a summary of the anomalies between the lists.

Collectively, these sources list the names of 95 alleged innocents.

CNN lists 87 names, which should be a complete list ,but indicates that the list is incomplete. The 8 left out are Vamsikrishna, Roux, Iskander,Jalbert, Tu,Weems,Ward and Booms.

USAT lists 86 names, citing this as a ``partial list``, Those missing are Caplin, Jalbert, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux, Tu,Weems,Ward and Iskander.

NBC lists 87 names. Its the same as USAT with the addition of Iskander, but changes Peter Hashem to Peter el-Hachem.

PBS is identical to NBC.

The Boston daily lists 89 innocents and describes it as a a partial list. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Tu , Weems,Ward and Booms. It is the only list to name Jalbert.

A year later it lists 87 names, changing Heath Smith to Heather Smith, Hashem to el-Hachem , and losing Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert and Roux for Iskander, Vamsikrishna and Booms.

The Washington Post published a ``partial list`` containing 89 names. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Jalbert , Tu , Weems and Ward .

The ``we will never forget`` website lists 88 names. Those missing are Vamsrikrishna, Jalbert, Booms, Tu, Weems,Ward and Roux.

The AA11 memorial website lists 90 names and claims 95 aboard. The missing names are Vamsikrishna, Tu, Weems, Ward and Jalbert.

Wikipedia claims a summation of 93 aboard, but lists only 92 names (including hijackers).It is the only site to list Lana Tu. Those missing are Iskander, Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert,Weems,Ward and Roux. This makes it the same as the USAT list with the addition of Tu or put another way - the same as the NBC and PBS lists except that Tu is in for Isaknder.

The American Memorials/Obituary site lists 90 names and is the only list to name Weems and Ward. It leaves out Tu, Jalbert,Vamsikrishna, Roux and Booms.

Several sources claim that AA released 77 (or 75) names on Sept 12, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day, and the Boston Daily published 89 - but not the same 89 - the day after, while Fox News was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

We still can`t rule out the possibility that Caplin/Kaplan is a genuine co-incidence, but suspicion is justified, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names. Some lists have Peter el-Hachem, others Peter Hashem Some lists have Heather Smith and others Heath Smith. Most lists have Antonio Montoya but one has Antonio Montoya Valdes.

Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we cant yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious.

What`s even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert, Roux, Ward and Weems.

What a mess ! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people , and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented ? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can`t even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims ?

It`s previously been demanded by many sceptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight.

The fact is - that in nearly three years - the media has tried to give the impression that they have published valid passenger lists, when all that has been provided is the contradictory rubbish exposed in this investigation. We are left with no choice but to conclude that these AA11 lists are fabrications. Personal stories of those allegedly involved have been built on the basis of these fabricated lists. As qualified earlier, some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don`t know at this stage. But the passenger lists as complete entities are lies.

I say ``alleged flight`` because the article linked below presents official documentation that there was no such flight as AA11 on Sept 11, 2001.

``What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001. by Gerard Holmgren Nov 13 2003.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast

The article linked below presents documentation that if one is to use media reports as the basis to claim the existence of such a flight, then one would have to believe that there were two AA11s that day.

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight - by Woody Box

http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=28

This website presents video evidence that neither of the objects which struck the WTC were the planes alleged in the official story.

First hit examinations
http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane
Second hit examinations
http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit

This page presents a comprehensive compilation of evidence for Govt. involvement in the Sept 11 attacks.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=50

Suggestions for verifying this information for yourself.

For those who would like to seriously scrutinize my analysis - and I welcome and encourage such scrutiny - here is a suggestion for a way to analyze this mass of data while minimizing the likelihood of mistakes.

Print each list linked in this article. Choose one list as a reference list, which I will call List 1. Count the names - at least twice - and write down the number. Take list 2. Count the names - at least twice- and write down the number. Cross check it , name by name, with list 1. On list 1 write down any names from list 2 which are missing, and on list 2, write down any names from list 1 which are missing. Ensure that the summary of conflicting names reconciles with the numbers of names on both lists. Take list 3, count the names and write down the number. Cross check the names against lists 1 and 2 in the same way, writing on list 3 any names missing from the compilation of lists 1 and 2, and adding any new names appearing in list 3 to lists 1 and 2. Ensure that the numbers match the name discrepancies and move through the rest of the lists in similar fashion. This was the method I used for this research.

In case anyone is thinking of removing or doctoring the lists linked in this article, they`ve already been backed up and widely distributed.

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11
Detract From Real Issues
By Gerard Holmgren, 2003-02-15

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several, wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. ``The CIA killed Hendrix``, ``The Pope had John Lennon murdered ``, ``Hitler was half Werewolf``, ``Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone``, etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So it`s hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is sadly a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they ``hate our freedoms.``

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don`t even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand-down of the US Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks — linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It`s difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so-called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as ``the fruit loop`` and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard-core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren`t any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

``Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?`` ``A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get.`` ``Very strange``, thinks the security officer. ``That`s the fourth Arab man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one of these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess...``

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers` passports were found at the crash scenes. ``So there!`` they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity. Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, ``Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!`` And so the whole loop starts again. ``Well, why aren`t they on the passenger lists?`` ``You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!`` And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story. ``Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? `` The answer of course is that it`s just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The ``improbability drive``, in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called ``Occam`s Razor`` which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam`s razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes. Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four-digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath-taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of ``our freedoms``, it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar — really impeccable Islamic behavior — and then got up at 5 am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear-headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, it`s not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there`s nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly-replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that it`s easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren`t any explosives. It wasn`t an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800°C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine — let alone the boiling point — which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there`s about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15 lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as ``mumbo jumbo``. This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins. ``Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact.`` they state with pompous certainty. ``Watch any Bruce Willis movie.`` Care to provide any documented examples? If it`s a well-known fact, then presumably this well-known fact springs from some kind of documentation — other than Bruce Willis movies?

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.
``Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there`s no way of telling.`` they counter with a sly grin.
Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.
``But not big planes, with that much fuel ``, they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vapourize.
``Yes but not hijacked planes!``
Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?
``Now you`re just being silly``.

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don`t vapourize into nothing. What`s so special about a tower that`s mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. ``Its a well-documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact.``

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that it`s a ``well-known fact`` and that ``it`s never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to``, the conspiracy theorist has now convinced himself (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly-discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, it`s necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, the kerosine not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000°C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper`s steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn`t make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to:

completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft
have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel (melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel) and
still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you`re there innocently holding the lamp — the next — kapow! vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen-starved fire — therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000°C, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they`ve already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it`s physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
``Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir``
``No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport.``
``You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms.``
Or perhaps they misunderstood the term ``creative science`` and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was, in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can`t be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000°C isn`t really required, 100°C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That`s right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you`re in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you`re trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45-degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12-foot diameter through three rings (six walls). A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we`ve already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell — why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is ``mumbo jumbo``. It conflicts with the delusion that they`re hooked on, so it ``must be wrong`` although trying to get then to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it`s exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That`s a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings — here`s where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they`ll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an ``irrecoverable angle.`` How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it`s not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.


At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in ``retaliation``, are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self-indulgence to go unchallenged.


Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia. It`s time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

Copyright 2003 Gerard Holmgren
This work may be freely copied and distributed as long as it not for commercial use.

#58 by mohar11

All that to what end?.... make a case to attack a bunch of bedouins? US could have attacked bedouins no matter what - who was going to stop them anyway???... and there were enough provocations already - attacks on the embassies, USS cole....

Not enough justification to occupy the entire middle east. And these aren`t just `a bunch of bedouins` mind you .. here`s an anecdote from I.K. Gujral`s meeting with James Baker:

Gujral said that at the height of Gulf War I in 1990-91, around two lac Indians had been stranded in Iraq and Kuwait after Iraqi armed forces had occupied Kuwait. In an attempt to evacuate Indians, Gujral said that he visited the US as India`s Foreign Minister and met Baker to brief him on the situation.

Gujral said, he was surprised when Baker said: ``Gujral, oil is our civilisation, and we will never permit any demon to sit on it.`` Gujral said he was taken aback, and thanked God India did not have oil reserves.

#75 quoting Fareed Zakaria <<< There is no doubt today that the costs of the invasion have far outweighed the benefits. But in the long view of history, will that always be true? >>>

Look how easy it is for these establishment apologists (do not read establishment apologists as Bush apologists) to support carnage and tyranny that is happening as fact with alleged happy pictures of the future where ``heaven`` will be attained. Give me one example of any area where the US has intervened militarily post world war 2 that has attained that heaven, as an indepedant whole, while not being occupied. None, zip, nada. Wherever the US elite have intervened militarily post WW2, only misery and destruction has followed, Iraq will be no different, as HP sahib mentions, it will probably end up broken into parts. Using that tiny fart of a country, Kuwait, if it can be described as a country, the US has effectively recolonized in the old fashion, the ME. If a threat to US hegemony in the region emerges in the future, it will emerge out of Egypt, so expect something to happen there, maybe not in our lifetimes who knows.

``Now representatives of all three communities—Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds—are sitting down at the table, trying to construct a workable bargain they can all live with.

These sectarian power struggles can get extremely messy, and violent parties have taken advantage of every crack and cleavage. But this might be inevitable in a country coming to terms with very real divisions and disagreements. Iraq might be stumbling toward nation-building by consent, not brutality. And that is a model for the Middle East.``(Zakaria)


this is a bunch of vertigoized balancing bull and pasteurized obtuse objectivity -- paid by US World News...

.....in his hearts of hearts Fareed knows there is only ONE and only ONE -- MOTHER of ALL -- `violent parties` -- who gave birth to all these Rose Mary babies -- creatures -- who operate in the genetically identical image of their violent bush-whacking parents........only the clothes are different --

Iraq IS DISINTEGRATING -- not `rebuilding` -- unless the Crummy `Cons have invented a reverse time machine

and a Fareed Zakaria whose own father fought the British Tommies to get back his own dignity and his country`s dignity.......should know BETTER -- the difference between an artificial government of QUISLING `gooks`, `geeks` called `Abduls` -- bamboozled by the American `democracy tanks` to gather into a rump parliament --

and a REAL representative government elected FREELY -- AFTER the Foreigners ...are kicked.......out....for good never to come back ever again.......like in the subcontinent post `47....despite the bloodshed

......Iraq has gone to Dogs -- want to know its future -- go and see V for Vendetta......not V for Victory...

HP #66, <<< How hard all US admins try to maintain the living standards is evident from their efforts allover the world >>>

HP sahib the facts reveal the opposite. Since the 1980s the standard of living for US public has been consistently falling inspite of foreign intervention while that for the very rich consistently going up. The intervention is not for the US public it is for the MNC/power elite. Look at all the relocations, has that resulted in the standard of living going up for the common American who has got laid off and forced to work at service level jobs, of course not. Has that resulted in a higher standard of living for the third world worker, hardly.

Of course the US elite have to treat their public better than the rest of the world, their first line of legitimacy anf first line of destrution will come from this public, so they use nationalism and symbols (akin to religious symbols of old) to build solidarity at home and show this public that they are seperate and superior to the rest of the world. Yes there is apartheid in this world similar to the caste system and third world occupies a lower caste in the eyes of this elite than their own public but the elite do not consider their own public to be at par with them. There is overwhelming evidence to show that. So our disagreement is a disagreement over degrees of separation. Oil is tricky business. Here profits matter just as much to US corporations as supply, if oil profits were to dwindle, US dependency on oil would end and alternatives viable and well developed would be way beyond what we see today. There is just too much profit in oil for alternatives to be developed.

#67 by SR on March 20, 2006 2:51pm PT


George Bush, you understand, is just a symbol... nothing against him personally.


Why the disclaimer..you think someone in Ft Meade is monitoring your posts?

Excerpts from a recent Newsweek article by Fareed zakaria.

Appalling—But Not Hopeless
You see lots of rough politics and jockeying for power in Baghdad. But when facing the abyss, you also see glimpses of leadership

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

March 27, 2006 issue - Three years ago this week, I watched the invasion of Iraq apprehensively. I had supported military intervention to rid the country of Saddam`s tyranny, but I had also been appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue. .....And yet, for all my misgivings about the way the administration has handled this policy, I`ve never been able to join the antiwar crowd. Nor am I convinced that Iraq is a hopeless cause that should be abandoned.

Let`s remember that in 2002 and early 2003, U.S. policy toward Iraq was collapsing. The sanctions regime was becoming completely ineffective against Saddam—he had gotten quite good at cheating and smuggling—and it was simultaneously impoverishing the Iraqi people. ......

In his fatwa of 1998, Osama bin Laden`s first two charges against the United States were that it was ``occupying`` Saudi Arabia and starving Iraqi women and children. The Palestinian cause was a distant third. Meanwhile Saddam had a 30-year history of attempting to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
.....

So why have I not given up hope? Partly it`s because I have been to Iraq, met the people who are engaged in the struggle to build their country and cannot bring myself to abandon them. Iraq has no Nelson Mandelas, but many of its leaders have shown remarkable patience, courage and statesmanship. Consider the wisdom and authority of Ayatollah Sistani, or the fair-minded and effective role of the Kurds, or the persistent pleas for secularism and tolerance from men like Ayad Allawi. You see lots of rough politics and jockeying for power in Baghdad. But when the stakes get high, when the violence escalates, when facing the abyss, you also see glimpses of leadership.

There is no doubt today that the costs of the invasion have far outweighed the benefits. But in the long view of history, will that always be true? If, after all this chaos, a new and different kind of Iraqi politics emerges, it will make a difference in the region. Even now, amid the violence, one can see that. The old order in Iraq was built on fear and terror. One group dominated the land, oppressing the others. Now representatives of all three communities—Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds—are sitting down at the table, trying to construct a workable bargain they can all live with.

These sectarian power struggles can get extremely messy, and violent parties have taken advantage of every crack and cleavage. But this might be inevitable in a country coming to terms with very real divisions and disagreements. Iraq might be stumbling toward nation-building by consent, not brutality. And that is a model for the Middle East.

#72 I don`t know how israel enters into this. There was some chatter right after the attacks on WTC that israel may have been aware that the attacks were coming. The evidence, ostensibly, were israelis who had been seen videotaping the burning towers from some distance. They were arrested, questioned and subsequently released. ABC and Fox News initially reported the story and subsequently pulled it from their web sites.
Adding to all the mystery is Dubya`s claim that he had seen the first attack on TV. Some have interpreted this to mean that he had been privy to the impending attack since it was not until much later that an amateur video of the first attack surfaced.
The US has steadfastly refused to disclose any proof of Osama`s involvement altho they apparently shared it with Pakistan`s dictator (along with a cattle prod) who found it convincing enough to agree to cooperate with the americans.
The conspiracy theories swirling around this will never be put to rest. As with conspiracies in general, the more vigorously someone denies it, the more convinced does the conspiracy theorist become.

the real mystery is who bombed vaziristan and who who died and who escaped..

#67 by SR on March 20, 2006 2:51pm PT

{Could be any one (or more of the following) ……. (all above alternatives are theoritically possible ... In the end, who gains from it all? .. Answer: Follow the money, and time will tell}

Theoretically, one can also say that American Indians might have done it to avenge white Americans. However, if you assign probabilities, only two candidates remain: Israel and Osama’s folks. Now, Israelis get what they want in USA, most of it and most of the time. Why any Israeli government in right mind will risk loosing every thing? Jews are smart and they think before they act. That leaves you know who and their record is that they do not think through all the repercussions because they think that they are the bravest, and they have exclusive lock on God.

Also, you can not always “follow the money” and find out who did it. America benefited most from WWII. It does not mean that they started the war. Smart people try to make best of any situation. Under the circumstances, it’s quite possible that USA might wind up controlling the oil reserves in next 5-10 years, since that will insure smooth operation of the world economy. If Arabs are foolish enough not to use God’s greatest gift to them (oil and western willingness to pay fair price for it) and not use it to educate and uplift their own folks, then civilized countries should control it and do the dirty work of reforming them.

continued:

how hard was it for Americans to plant a WMD evidence in Iraq after he was controlling 90% of it? It is the same country that attacked itself with planes and missiles...how hard is to plant evidence of presence of marijuana in my back yar by my neighbour while I am not home?

SR, those pictures has been around since day one and I have seen them before browsing thru the sites provided by fuzair and netizen. lack of not have seen the evidence is not same as lack of evidence. also I am surprized you accepted the plane sheet metal piece in the photograph as evidence without any fight (unless you are being sarcastic in your own style)...on one hand you go as for out as saying Pentagon hit itself with the missiles and on the other hand you accept the 2 foot piece of painted metal as legitimate...why couldn`t pentagon, that can hit its own command and control center with missiles, plant that piece of metal for the photograph?

One could also argue that 2 planes hitting the WTC was enough for Bush Adminis. to build their case in front of Americans for attack on Afghanistan....what did those two extra planes contribute? If I am planitng events to make a case, I would do bare minimum to make that case and not do slightest beyond that to expose my self.

Why should have pentagon hit itself with missiles, putting itself in the danger of getting exposed or caught in the act...why not just crash another plane or 2 or 3 in the pentagon building just as conspiracy theorists believe it did in case of WTC? or more over, even crash in a way that it leaves a big bird mark on the building that can the photographed and provided as evidence to forensic enthusaists like yourself.:)
or you think they are nto capable of staging it? why not?

why not - I mean on the morning of 9/11 there was not even a thought that crossed anyone`s mind and all of sudden within minutes whole media, govt, public..all 300 million minds started working in unisun to the hidden dark desires of mr. Bush as if all got secret instructions the previous night....if American could manage to do that, why ask for evidences,....I am such a power could just say... shoo mantar ....and produce anything in a split second as evidence.:-)

SR:
there are gaps and not having complete information doesnt mean that one jump on conclusions based on one`s biases. In that you are absolutely correct in #67.
I just wanted to say that you cannot assign an unknown event a (high or low) probability estimate. To assign probabilites on the event space, one has to assume that all events are known. Like throwing a dice will always have six known outcomes/events. Based on the known events, i think and i only think as there is no way i can analytically prove it that OBL-and-the-gang-dunn`it seem to be the event that has the greatest likelihood amongst all the events. Entertaining unknown events is possible but then we cant have the likelihood estimates. It`d be more of an exercise in paranoia, me thinks.

Re: # 32 Fuzair

The thnak you mentioned in #67 was addressed to Netizen, but it also equally applies to you. The photograph on page 6 of his popular mechanics site was also present on second to last page of the site you quoted. The rest was all statements and official accounts. But there is at least one picture of a piece of debris that I am now aware of... This is a huge improvement in evidence as far as I am concerned. I dare say, it is a bit more to the point than Mohammad Atta`s passport remains in NY. I mean, after all, what did that suggest? It only suggested that he had his passport on his person when the plane slammed into WTC. Presumably the passport was in his front shirt pocket and thus was able to fly out straight through the hole made by the impact of the plane before ignition of fuel and it flew out and came down on the street. Atta, presumable sat in the cockpit so that can be well imagined.

This picture also shows a fragment of the airplane`s hull that could have broken off on impact, presumably, and peeled off to one side. At least now we can say that there is some evidence of an airplane`s existence somehow connected to the Pentagon impact. I leave it to the experts to evaluate the quality and significance of this evidence. I stand satisfied that some photographic does indeed exist.

Thank you again.

...SR

Re: # 35 Netizen ... photographic evidence...

I wish to express sincere thanks. You are the only person who has provided some evidence about a jetliner in the context of Pentagon. This is the FIRST PICTURE I have seen that provides an image linking the debris of a plane to the Pentagon attack. Once again, my sincere thinks. Now I can say that there is photographic evidence and that I have seen it.

Now about conspiracy theories and the fundamentalists on Chowk.

I am quite dismayed at the rampant fundamentalism and closed mindedness that so many Chowkies demonstrate. Take this example of the tangent this discussion took off on when I asked the author a simple question.

The whole 9/11 affair has clouded world politics in recent years. Naturally, there have been many spins on various aspects of it and people with different ideological leanings have drawn their own conclusions about the events themselves as well as the larger forces at work in the background. The issues involved are complex and often get emotive.

For my part, the problem arises when people see and interpret events through the prism of their personal prejudices instead of looking for objective evidence where possible. A lot of time objective evidence is either hard to obtain or it is questionable. This makes matters even more murky. I am really sick and tired of the various fundamentalisms that parade around. On the one extreme are the religious nutcases of various colors and on the other extreme are the fascistic-reductionists.

To the Islamic fundos everything is about anti-islam this and anti-islam that... they own up to no atrocity or responsibility committed by their ilk. To them Muslim shit don`t stink, and that perfumed aroma began to spread around the world when the Prophet farted.

Then we have the other, equally repugnant, fundamentalists who believe that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim and that exploitation of the poor, killing of the innocent civilians by cruise missles, and corporate neo-imperialism of the Third World are all imaginary commie pinko pseudo-intellectual propaganda slogans and that the sun shines through George Bush`s asshole. (George Bush, you understand, is just a symbol... nothing against him personally. I mean to use his name as a symbol of the interests he represents.)

My question (in #4) was prompted by a remark in the article that referred to airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon. Since I generally endorsed the things mentioned in the article (he mostly stated the obvious and the known) I didn`t feel the need to comment on his thesis... (although I don`t quite see eye to eye with the author`s central theme and accept that Gulf War One was the parent of 9/11... Nine Eleven has many fathers, I think. Not just Gulf War I)... I did throw in a question about forensic evidence... I did that because I have read innumerable accounts and seen countless photos of the 9/11 events but had never seen any evidence of an airplane hitting the Pentagon. So I asked if anyone has any source. No one bothered to respond to the simple question and many just began barking mad.

You were the only person who didn`t ask a silly counter question and had the decency to dig up a source (of which I was unaware) and showed it. Once again thank you for that.

But boy what a disappointment some members of this crowd turn out to be. Bloody Juveniles. It seemed that a hornet`s nest had been stirred. It is appaling how many people here lack the capacity to simply READ plain English. A good half a dozen chewed my ass for being a conspiracy theorist and an islamic fundo. (Those of you who did that: Shame on all of you fundamentalists.)

I do feel somewhat reassured, however, because narrow minded extremists on both ends of the spectrum seem to get offended by my basic observations.

So what do I think about 9/11 events??? The inquisitioners will ask. Only what the objective evidence tells me. Which is the following:

1) Four seperate incidents occurred within one hour and twenty minutes of each other.
2) All four events must be linked.
3) Two jetliners slammed into the two WTC towers.
4) There was a plane crash in rural Pensylvania.
5) A similar crash happened in the Pentagon though no plane was filmed.

Who dun it?
1) Nineteen suicide hijackers seem like the likely candidates, unless proven otherwise.
2) Remote controlled drone planes seem like a highly questionable alternative.
3) US military fired missiles (on the Pentagon) also seem a highly questionable alternative.

(all above alternatives are theoritically possible)

Who was behind it?

Could be any one (or more of the following)
1) Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (primitive, lack competence though not motive)
2) Russian mafia/KGB rogue elements and/or Chinese (Tom Clancy fiction)
3) Japanese secret militants avenging Hiroshema (John Gresham fiction)
4) Israeli mossad agents (possess capability, but too smart to dare such a big risk)
5) US secret rogue cabal with hidden agenda (Robert Ludlum fiction)
6) Another unknown force of evil with unknown agenda (highly likely)

(all above alternatives are theoritically possible)


In the end, who gains from it all?

Answer: Follow the money, and time will tell.

...SR