Friday, September 29, 2006

New Hampshire Prof Under Fire for 9-11 Denial

Unfortunately, this case is unlikely to end up like Steven Jones' suspension.

Woodward, a tenured professor, belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members question the official story about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and contend that the U.S. government either had knowledge of the attacks or had a role in them.

Gov. John Lynch called Woodward's beliefs "completely crazy and offensive" and asked the trustees to investigate.

Andy Lietz, chairman of the university system trustees, said a "careful review" of Woodward found his teaching consistent with accepted standards, "even though he has expressed some ideas that many find objectionable." Some of Woodward's students have defended him.

Woodward has said he does not push his views on his students but has mentioned it in his classroom in the spirit of full disclosure.


Full disclosure? You mean like disclosing that he's a nutbar?

Reactions from other bloggers:

Blue Crab Boulevard:

The only way his beliefs would be relevant is if he were using them as an example of how otherwise intelligent people can be stupid enough to fall into idiotic and dangerous beliefs. Abnormal psychology, then.


Damian Penny:

As for Professor Woodward, the impression I get is that he brings up this stuff in class, kind of like the history professor I once had who moped about the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I wrote earlier, if Woodward is making the students accept his twisted theories if they want to pass, he's clearly crossed the line. If he's allowing students to argue with him, it's probably within bounds.


That's pretty much my take as well. Kevin Barnett is a different matter; there he's teaching 9-11 Denial as part of the curriculum.

James Joyner:

The idea that politicians, let alone students, should have any say as to which professors are hired and fired is nuttier than anything Woodward espouses. The professoriate has always operated as essentially a guild, with experts monitoring the conduct of other experts. That system has worked for centuries.


That's pretty close. I don't think students should not have any say; their input should certainly be considered, but it should not be dispositive.

23 Comments:

At 29 September, 2006 08:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just hope the students' petition doesn't give the CT's another celebrity martyr.

 
At 29 September, 2006 08:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I think you need to have trust in the peer review process wrt curriculum. That said, the ultra left wing aspect of most faculties will often mean a very soft disposition on all matters that protest against govt.

TAM

 
At 29 September, 2006 12:28, Blogger M8 said...

So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?..

I hear and see claims that these profs. are crazy, they are nut cases. But I do not find much substance in such simple statements- what makes the professors so crazy?

I've read many of the assertions and I can't determine what is so crazy or nutty?

As a former military man who worked in NORAD (and who understand that many in govt. are not working for the same team - i.e Hansen, Brian Reagan) I cannot figure out why so many balls were dropped on 9-11 - acorss so many agencies. I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.

Again, what makes the questions so crazy?

Hmmm. If I used history as a backdrop you folks seem to be the crazy ones. Our forefathers emphatically warn us not to trust govt...Govts. have historically been corrupt institutions. Govts. have historical committed horrible acts against it's own citizens.

With such a rich backdrop - it would seem that we should first look at and try ti rule out the govt. as the culprit. The claims of urgency, the enemy will get us if we waste time on conspiracies and those who question are aiding the enemy is about as tired and disproven as govt. itself.

I know I know...It's different this time...You would be crazy to think otherwise. If you honestly examined the logistics to carry out attacks - you find that established govts. are the ones with exclusive access and capability.

Govts. are not about the individual - it's about the fallible instituion that has be be forced to serve the people - govts. have to be brutally managed by the people -- to the opposite -- govts who rule and influence the people are exemplified by threats against academics who dare challenge the party line and citizens who fear being labled a nut case if he/she dares to ask the tough questions....

 
At 29 September, 2006 12:34, Blogger M8 said...

Oh I forgot to add the part about the professors who are corrupting the minds of impressionable students at taxpayer expense.

Thats right. I am fighting to force professors to follow the party line (similar to 30's Germany) - none of that subversive stuff that will cause my kid to question authority. I want my junior to grow up believing every thing spewed out of the govts mouth. I have decided to say "to hell with the Constitution, to hell with the Founding Fathers - shut them up and get them out -

 
At 29 September, 2006 13:35, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?..

1. The fact that they use their positions as academics to insinuate that they are somehow more qualified to talk on all matters 9/11, when in fact, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the attacks, 90% of the Full Time membership of that group have absolutely NO EDUCATION OR SKILLS in those areas.

2. The fact that people with such a high level of education could ignore logic, ignore the scientific method, ignore the evidence, or call it fabricated simply because it has some minute link to an element of the USG, or because their own distrust of the govt blinds them.

I hear and see claims that these profs. are crazy, they are nut cases. But I do not find much substance in such simple statements- what makes the professors so crazy?


Most craziness comments likely are about Judy Woods and Fetzer. Fetzer is poorly researched, and exhibits an extreme degree of paranoia. Judy compares the WTCs to Trees, which is enough for me to see she has lost it.

I've read many of the assertions and I can't determine what is so crazy or nutty?

Because you cannot see it does not mean it isn't so. they can't see it either.

As a former military man who worked in NORAD (and who understand that many in govt. are not working for the same team - i.e Hansen, Brian Reagan) I cannot figure out why so many balls were dropped on 9-11 - acorss so many agencies. I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.

Well if you worked for NORAD, and you feel the government helped or let 9/11 happen, than come forward, give us your name and we will tell the "truth" movement. they will have you on all their shows, and then the big bad USG will come tumbling down. Funny they havent mentioned you.

Again, what makes the questions so crazy?

come on are you that naive. I dont think so. The questions are not what makes them crazy. We have questions to. It is the extreme, outrageous conspiracy claims they make...that make them crazy.

Hmmm. If I used history as a backdrop you folks seem to be the crazy ones. Our forefathers emphatically warn us not to trust govt...Govts. have historically been corrupt institutions. Govts. have historical committed horrible acts against it's own citizens.

You mistakenly think that most here "trust" govt. They don't. They just feel that the essence of the official story on who committed 9/11 attacks, and how, is correct.

With such a rich backdrop - it would seem that we should first look at and try ti rule out the govt. as the culprit. The claims of urgency, the enemy will get us if we waste time on conspiracies and those who question are aiding the enemy is about as tired and disproven as govt. itself.

Now that is a paranoid statement, to assume that the people elected by the people would be the first on a list of suspects to hurt them.

I know I know...It's different this time...You would be crazy to think otherwise. If you honestly examined the logistics to carry out attacks - you find that established govts. are the ones with exclusive access and capability.

Govts. are not about the individual - it's about the fallible instituion that has be be forced to serve the people - govts. have to be brutally managed by the people -- to the opposite -- govts who rule and influence the people are exemplified by threats against academics who dare challenge the party line and citizens who fear being labled a nut case if he/she dares to ask the tough questions....


So all the hundreds of engineers, scientists, who are also academics, but who believe the official story, what do you say about them...or are they "different" academics. You make it sound like Fetzer et al represent all educators and academics everywhere, when that is extremely far from the truth.

Oh I forgot to add the part about the professors who are corrupting the minds of impressionable students at taxpayer expense.

Thats right. I am fighting to force professors to follow the party line (similar to 30's Germany) - none of that subversive stuff that will cause my kid to question authority. I want my junior to grow up believing every thing spewed out of the govts mouth. I have decided to say "to hell with the Constitution, to hell with the Founding Fathers - shut them up and get them out -


Noone is saying the profs cannot include 9/11 alternative theories in an appropriate course. That is the issue, is where is appropriate. I personally don't think that I want my son learning about 9/11 in his math class (an extreme example, but you get the point).

Nice of you to join us FORMER NORAD WORKER. Did you leave before or after 9/11?

TAM

 
At 29 September, 2006 13:41, Blogger default.xbe said...

I hear and see claims that these profs. are crazy, they are nut cases. But I do not find much substance in such simple statements- what makes the professors so crazy?

read through the archives, we debunked them scientifically a long time ago, and since they still spout the same lies we just laugh at them now

I cannot figure out why so many balls were dropped on 9-11 - acorss so many agencies.

i dont really see how many "balls were dropped" 9/11 was such a unique situation many of the "balls" were never in hand to begin with

I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.

what "certain activities" are those? the plan was hijack plane, crash into buildings, doesnt really need an insider

Again, what makes the questions so crazy?

theres nothing wrong with questions, but the loosers and scholars decided on the answer they wanted long before the question was asked, and they refuse to listen to any answers they dont like

Our forefathers emphatically warn us not to trust govt...Govts. have historically been corrupt institutions. Govts. have historical committed horrible acts against it's own citizens.

i know there are several people here who dont trust the govt either, but that doesnt mean the govt is ALWAYS the bad guy,a nd it doesnt mean they never ever tell the truth

With such a rich backdrop - it would seem that we should first look at and try ti rule out the govt. as the culprit.

thats not how investigations work, you dont rule out suspects you want to blame, you examine the evidence and follow where it leads

The claims of urgency, the enemy will get us if we waste time on conspiracies

this was because they wanted to capitalize on it before public opinion changed, but just because they sued it to their advantage doesnt mean they caused it to happen

If you honestly examined the logistics to carry out attacks

if you honestly examined the logistics of the conspiracy theories, AND the subsequent total coverup, youd find that no govt on earth could keep it under wraps



i agree people have the right and the duty to question their government, but they should not ignore answers just because they dont like them

 
At 29 September, 2006 13:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?..

They're liars. Is that a good enough reason?

Again, what makes the questions so crazy?

It isn't the questions themselves.
It's the mindless repetition of the questions long after they've been answered. It's the answers the truth cult comes up with as alternatives to the answers they've been given.


Unrelated:
I mocked this guy in a forum one time for his horrible typing. It turned out he had no arms and had to type with his feet. I never make fun of people's typing any more.

 
At 29 September, 2006 14:05, Blogger Alex said...

I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.

Well, as one military man speaking to another, you Sir are a quack. There is not a single "activity" which the hijackers performed which would require "an insider". If you truly think otherwise, I challange you to come up with a list of these "activities" and we'll discuss them. That's the sort of comment I'd expect from a civ, not from someone who's worn the uniform, and DEFFINITELY not from someone who's worked as part of NORAD. Unless, ofcourse, your experience at NORAD ended back in the 60's, in which case your lack of education about modern threats would be understandable.

 
At 29 September, 2006 14:14, Blogger Richard said...

DD-214 please, preferably not faked...

 
At 29 September, 2006 15:02, Blogger shawn said...

what makes the professors so crazy?

They believe that the towers were demolished via controlled demolition and that 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 29 September, 2006 15:03, Blogger shawn said...

I am fighting to force professors to follow the party line (similar to 30's Germany) - none of that subversive stuff that will cause my kid to question authority.

Wow, have you even gone to college? If you think the professors tell you to respect authority and are all right-wing fascists (though they are another type) - well you either went through college in a coma or never went at all.

 
At 29 September, 2006 15:12, Blogger Richard said...

LOL, perfect answer. Also if you were really in the Military then you would know that you don't have to be in NORAD to know what's going on. Claiming to be a "military man who worked in NORAD" sounds like something out of hollywood. Why don't we ever hear people say "Well I was in S2 at the time" or "I was coming off of Staff Duty when I..."



P.S. I was cleaning the barracks when CQ informed me that the first plane had hit.

 
At 29 September, 2006 19:45, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

I was stationed near NORAD (Ft. Carson) and I toured it once. Does that make me an expert on national security?

 
At 30 September, 2006 04:06, Blogger M8 said...

Just as I thought - the first reference that I worked in NORAD and I have doubts about 9-11 - you go absolutely nuts. It can't be true...If you were really military you would be on the news..Why? I have no idea what happened on 9-11. I'm simply saying that from my experience there was no way 19 guys could have pulled off the job without inside help - and there is significant evidence of assistance - which could be as simple as looking the other way - or pulling a good patriot off of a key position.

Why would I take my family through the meat grinder of folks who are in utter denial? And of those (who have quite a bit of power) who will go to major lengths to discredit claims that could land them in the electric chair? The latest bill that has passed should give all of you pause - the recent bill allowing the govt. to detain, torture and deny (essentially eliminating the writ of habeas corpus - the foundation of a free society) individuals (not excluding US citizens) is unprecedented in modern US history...I know I know, it's all for the terrorist.

An then, "oh that's a fake DD214" - or maybe I could post my AF Form 2587 - (oh what is that?) - it's probably fake too..

Oh yeah, my typing sucks - so what.

Look I can post DD214's and photos, I could duke it out with Alex who - while claiming he served in the military - does not appear to have worked in NORAD or had significant clearance... I could talk about volunteer tours for civs - where I would take them to see what was at the time the 33rd TFW (you figure it out) - I would crow about how at a momemnts notice ready teams would be in the air. Many of our bases have highly restrictive air corridors and our guys are up in heartbeat - come on, would you expect anything less?

You have to fool yourselves into believing we couldn't get birds up on 9-11...(1) alert duty is a dedicated function (2) 99.9% of intercepts are false alarms, but have no impact on response rate - taxpayers pay for readiness/mobility and our military is damn good at it (3) even with military exercises on 9-11 (which is a huge deviation from what we were originally told) readiness teams are not to be fully impacted - you always maintain a force component....Come on this is military 101.

I was not in the service in the 60's...As a side note for all of you who know so much about scramble alerts - like Payne Stewart, etc. and that military officials were quoted as saying that there were only a few scrambles in recent years, etc..are clueless. I propose to you that the information is classified. The military PR will give out whatever number that supports their position.

If any of you are familiar with AF2587, you will understand that if you had clearance - you are forever under the mandates of the Espionage Act. It is for this reason that many military people keep their mouths closed.

Further, I worked around many military who had absolutely no clue what was going on. Further, even in my field the compartmentalization was so restrictive that even with clearance - you would need special designation to perform certain activities outside of the "norm"...

As I've mentioned in previous post - there are many turn coats in the military and govt...Sgt Brian Reagan, FBI Hansen...Now you see this chump Congressman Foley being busted on the net with underage boys..Could Foley have been blackmailed in the past to keep his dirty little secret? Sure. A good portion of your life working in COMSEC is being trained to distrust, keep your mouth closed and be wary of signs that others around you may be compromised. Inside action is a mega-threat in the military.

So much so that you experience what gets to be absurd levels of check offs and follow ups...You could be certain that ESC (electronic security command - the name has changed recently), peers, AFOSI or DIA would be all over you butt if you stepped out of line.

If you folks did a little research into military jurisprudence you will find a never ending stack of UCMJ cases against GI's. and govt. officials You wonder how the system can function.

Check out the book "Breaking the Ring" - while the Walker boys were in a different branch - many of us were intimately familiar with what was compromised.

I could go down my laundry list of reasons why 9-11 appears to be inside action - but I will only toss out a couple. I believe the handful of FBI agents who claimed their efforts to track some of the 19 guys were thwarted...Able Danger - where the military (unauthorized by the Able Danger team) destroyed over a t.byte worth of data on the hijackers prior to 9-11.

It wasn't a simple matter of folks not doing their jobs - good patriots were doing their job - but when it came to the guys plotting 9-11 - things just happened where the patriots were pushed aside and the plotters found free passage.

At some point it get's to be absurb and statistically impossible for such good fortune for the plotters. And thats even considering some of the bumbling idiots I experienced in the military - in particular, sister services like the Army...

Moving forward to 9-11 (keeping in mind that the plotters have had the good fortune of "slipping past" the FBI (because of agents being removed from the case), "slipping past" INS who never noticed expired paperwork, flags on watch lists etc., along with the good fortune that the FBI did not follow up on a notice from a dentist near Barksdale AFB who called regarding some of the hijackers who he met - this guy created a manuscript about the encounter and was to testify in a related trial - but he is dead -just like John ONeil)

How can you accept the amazing coincidences that allowed the hijackers free passage? We are not talking about buildings falling down. We are talking about simple procedures and protocols w/the backdrop of known turncoats amongst our ranks.

In another posts I proposed that the plotters could not have known if air marshalls were on/off the plane. Yes, AM's were on planes prior to 9-11 - the #'s were classified (they only state that they stepped up the #'s after 9-11)...

How could the plotters have known that there were not military guys, football/hockey players and/or cops on the planes who could have cared less about some short arab dude with a box cutter...come on did you see the alleged pictures of those guys? If you recall, prior to 9-11 rowdy passengers (fights, attacks on staff was not unknown) led to action steps to limit in flight violence - I remember a news clip of flight attend..learning karate...


How could they have know that the cockpits would be accesible on multiple aircraft? It all depended on the pilot - so left the door open, some starting securing the cabin after several incidents (I think in one case a bloodied pilot beat a guy with an ax handle)..

How could the hijackers have known that they would not be intercepted as soon as the plane went off transponder? The assumption is that if I go off transponder I'm going to get a lot attention real fast. I have no idea what type of attention I will receive..."Okay guys, maybe they will be a little slow today - so let's go with this one in million chance that the ready teams will be on exercise or delayed or between shifts, etc...

Lastly, for now - I propose there is nearly seemless integration between military/civilian ATC. In many cases there are joint facilities. Civilian and military air corridors are shared and intersect. Come on, mil flights are all over the map - heavies, fast movers, helos - there has to be massive coordination, protocol between FAA and mil. ATC. Further mil has shared and exclusive radar facilities. And perhaps more importantly, the military specializes in tracking craft that are off transponder or appear invisible - isn't that the very nature of an enemy craft? Again folks were are talking mil 101.

A lot of tax paid propoganda has went into convincing the dubmed down American public that 19 crafty hijackers worked the system, while promoting the idea that we have failed systems (requiring billions more of our tax dollars to fix - which goes into the hands of a few select companies - every day in Iraq is buckets of cash for the big mil corps - which is essentially a transfer of wealth) - that for some reason the Soviets never exploited...While we sit back and allow our Constitution to be horribly re-written - without the consent of the people - while plans for the North American Union move ahead at break neck speed. It's going to be awesome being given the opportunity to spend my allotment of Amero's (the new proposed currency) when the troops (not al-queda) allow me to leave my house to the check-point...Not far to go - they had an armed check-point for seatbelts outside my house the other day. Got to love it - I know we're at war and we got to get those terrorist....

 
At 30 September, 2006 11:08, Blogger Slim_Toonunn said...

Not far to go - they had an armed check-point for seatbelts outside my house the other day. Got to love it - I know we're at war and we got to get those terrorist....

OMG! An armed checkpoint! Well there you go. Proof positive that you're right about all your rambling wackiness! And right outside your house too! OMG! I hope you can still read this from your secret CIA torture cell:

Seek professional help, you drooling loon.

 
At 30 September, 2006 15:47, Blogger Richard said...

or pulling a good patriot off of a key position.

You lost all credibility on that one. You officially have no idea waht your talking about. I think that you may have actually served in the Air Force but that doesn't mean jack. You can throw around words like COMSEC, OPSEC, etc but for us that served it makes you look stupid. You didn't even give your rank or MOS. You could be some shitbag E-2 cook for all I know. Every single one of my fellow soldiers that I've talked about 9/11 with agree that it wasn't LIHOP or MIHOP, so don't go around saying that they are being kept quiet. To date the only veterans that agree with the CTers are either fakers poor soldiers.

 
At 30 September, 2006 15:48, Blogger Richard said...

EDIT :
fakers OR poor soldiers.

 
At 30 September, 2006 23:24, Blogger M8 said...

Yeah, yeah we can play the he is military or not game all day long - I don't see you guys posting credentials - Richard seems to have all the answers - yeah I could have been an E2 cook - but who are you? who are your military buddies who know it wasn't a MIHOP or LIHOP - how in the hell could they possibly know? Again, if history is a clue, based on personal understanding of fundamental procedures it is likely an inside job. History and statistics will kick your ass everytime - Not one of you could answer - "why is 9-11 and it's aftermath any different than what was experienced by duped societies of the past?"

I tossed a couple of hooks into my posts to see if any of you were solid - NOT! No evidence whatsover - that's why you resort to personal attacks.

You guys are lightweights. You simply lack adequate background to question at this level -- so your only option is to nit-pick (i.e. the E2 cook statement or that I work in NORAD sounds like Hollywood - where do you guys get this stuff - where is the book on how do I prove I'm a military person on a blog)...

I will leave this lame forum with the following - regarding our administration which is everything but converative -and all about pursuing their Straussian belief system:


"The hallmark of Strauss' approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by "philosophers," who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish "populist" mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude. For Strauss and all of his protégés (Strauss personally had 100 Ph.D. students, and the "Straussians" now dominate most university political science and philosophy departments), the greatest object of hatred was the United States itself, which they viewed as nothing better than a weak, pathetic replay of "liberal democratic" Weimar Germany. "

Indeed, author Shadia B. Drury, in her 1997 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, named the following prominent Washington players as among Strauss' protégés: Paul Wolfowitz; Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas; Judge Robert Bork; neo-con propagandist and former Dan Quayle chief of staff, William Kristol; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; the National Review publisher William F. Buckley; former Reagan Administration official Alan Keyes; current White House bio-ethics advisor Francis Fukuyama; Attorney General John Ashcroft; and William Galston, former Clinton Administration domestic policy advisor, and co-author, with Elaine Kamark, of the Joe Lieberman-led Democratic Leadership Council's policy blueprint.

 
At 01 October, 2006 09:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

so essentially your point is "i never served in the military, therefore i have no clue what is going on in the world around me"

great logic there gi joe

 
At 01 October, 2006 12:18, Blogger shawn said...

Again, if history is a clue, based on personal understanding of fundamental procedures it is likely an inside job.

As someone who knew more about history at the age of eight than you will in your entire life, I wonder how you could make such a stupid statement.

Actual attacks far outweight false-flag operations in the historical record. Not only that, but in modern American history false-flag operations (or just non-attacks used to justify an action - Tonkin Gulf being on eof the few) are outnumbered by al-Qaeda attacks against America interests in the past two decades.

 
At 01 October, 2006 12:18, Blogger shawn said...

Oh, and you've obviously never read Leo Strauss.

 
At 01 October, 2006 22:01, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

Indeed, author Shadia B. Drury, in her 1997 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right

Yea, right. You cite another brain dead conspiracy theorist to try to prove yours is valid? It is easy to prove Drury is a loon, take this for example from the same book.

The truth of the matter is that neoconservativism is not conservative, but radical and reactionary.

This statement is, at best, a fallacy. You see, Drury is a hard left professor at the University of Calgary. She never meets, talk to or associates with anybody who disagees with her, so to her the hard left is normal. So when conservitives, for example, resist the effort to legalize gay marriage, and thereby redefine one of the fundamental institutions of our society, she sees that as "radical" and "reactionary", not the redefinition of marriage.

As for the laundry list of top officials who are supposedly under the spell of Strauss, I don't know if all those people ever even met this guy, but it sure sounds a lot like the Skull and Bones CT. It seems to me that the whole Strauss thing is just another poorly thought out and ignorant CT.

 
At 02 October, 2006 22:04, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?.."

The fact that none of them have relevant engineering experience. Dr. Jones is a physicist who researches fusion, for example.

And, the fact that academics must know that the academically accepted way to legitimize research is to submit it to peer review in established publications. They have not done so; in fact, they're attempting to create their own rubber stamping review process. Which is a subversion of the whole concept of peer review.

" I'm simply saying that from my experience there was no way 19 guys could have pulled off the job without inside help"

Pulled what off? Get on an airplane and threaten passengers? What about the fact there was only 19 of them makes this impossible? Hijackings have happened in the past with far fewer people involved. After the hijacking, it's only a matter of navigation to accomplish the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Please explain how you find it so impossible. You are only making an allegation.

"maybe I could post my AF Form 2587 "

Sure, go ahead. I'm not in the military myself, so I don't know what one is, but it would be a terrific good faith act to prove your credentials. You could blank out personal information, but it would help to understand what your credentials are.

BTW: What was your MOS? And your branch? I've noted that most ex-service members don't merely say "I'm military"; they usually identify themselves as having been with a specific branch i.e. "I'm ex Navy", or "I'm a Marine". No, I'm not assuming someone who served at NORAD was in the Air Force; I thought that was a joint agency. The current commander is an Admiral.

'Check out the book "Breaking the Ring" - while the Walker boys were in a different branch - many of us were intimately familiar with what was compromised."

I do remember the Walker case. I also remember that one of the big problems was lack of supervision. They were acting w/o government knowledge for many years. That was a severe issue, and proof that security was lacking to a frightening degree, but how exactly does that buttress any of the conspiracy fantasies about 9/11? How, for example, does the fact they existed support any claim about the government assisting the 9/11 hijackers? The Walker case was one about the government not knowing their espionage until after the fact. The 9/11 fantasy scenario would be the opposite: That government knew exactly what was happening because they planned it.

"If you recall, prior to 9-11 rowdy passengers (fights, attacks on staff was not unknown) led to action steps to limit in flight violence - I remember a news clip of flight attend..learning karate..."

And if you recall, the conventional wisdom on hijackings were that the hijackers were only concerned with being transported someplace, therefore you give them what they want and they'll let you go eventually. I distinctly remember reading and being told many times that the proper response to hijackers was to not stand out, to not give the hijackers any reason to single you out for any sort of action.

And: I know a flight attendant. She never said anything about resisting hijackers prior to 9/11; in fact, she said that the procedures for her airline were the opposite: Give them what they want, allow the local police force the opportunity to handle the situation, don't try to be a hero. That last was emphasized: "Don't try to be a hero".

So, not knowing that they were bound for kamikaze duty, the flight crew was supposed to fight back? I agree, that's what they should have done, but that's applying a hindsight analysis to the situation. Given the situation as it stood at the time, how can one say that fighting back was the proper response? Previous hijackings indicated otherwise.

". And perhaps more importantly, the military specializes in tracking craft that are off transponder or appear invisible - isn't that the very nature of an enemy craft? Again folks were are talking mil 101."

All right. Argument accepted. Can you explain how NORAD was supposed to single out the hijacked planes? They would've just been blips on radar. And, if they were out of their corridors, how would NORAD have known they were hijacked, as opposed to merely being off course for any reason (navigational error, in flight emergency)? Yes, I admit that I don't know much about procedure, but those like you who claim that the military was supposed to have been able to do something about the hijacked flights never explain how they were supposed to discriminate between them and legit traffic. Everyone points out Payne Stewart's flight, yet no one seems to explain how they were not able to intercept the Cessna that hit the White House back in '94, or the one that hit the Federal Reserve Bank in Miami in '02. Was NORAD stood down for those crashes too?

Last: How does your thesis regarding Strauss and his protégés explain anything? It may provide motive, assuming it's relevant, but how does it explain opportunity? I ask because I continually see arguments against this government being used to justify conspiracy fantasies, but philosophical bents of government personalities can not overcome the physical impossibilities of many of the conspiracy fantasies, such controlled demolition. Motive does not automatically translate into opportunity, and both are necessary.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home