abc wrote:

"Adam Ruth" <owski@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:anmWg.44060$rP1.5421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:

Aw, Hagar, you are just a goof-ball.  The majority of Americans now
accept the reality of extraterrestrials.  Also, the majority of
Americans do not accept the Govt. conspiracy-theory, something about
box-cutters, a cave, and able to attack the most secure building in the
world.
Nobody, except a few mental-cases, takes the Govt. conspiracy theory
seriously.  Your just playing a goof!!

Now, I don't think name calling helps the discussion much.  Besides, this may be more of an indication of the type of people you associate with, than a valid sample of the whole population.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

I'll take a stab, even though I'm no expert.  Mind you, I do not state conclusively that I present proof that there was no conspiracy, however I do think that all of these questions do have likely explanations that do not require conspiracy.

   1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked
airliners not followed that day?

Which procedures?  I'm only superficially aware of what procedures were in place.

Although certain procedures not being followed could be explained by how rare hijackings occur in US airspace and therefore how rarely those procedures are put into practice.  However, I would need to know which procedures you believe weren't followed before I could comment in more detail.

   2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses
reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the
attack?

There can be a number of explanations for them not being used.  First, I have some knowledge of air defense weapons, and can say that they are not all equally effective against all types of threats.  A low flying jumbo jet is not an ideal target for a Patriot battery, for example.

Though, more importantly, I think that it would be more an issue of policies.  I sincerely doubt that the Rules of Engagement allowed for the firing on a civilian jet, and as such a change of the ROE would require more time than would be necessary to effectively engage the target.

The notion that the Pentagon is protected by a soldier holding his finger over a firing button waiting for a blip to appear on his screen, is patently absurd.  Military defenses do not operate at full alert 24/7, but take time to move to different levels of alertness.

Besides, it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain how civilian planes could have been landed on both the White House lawn and the Kremlin's Red Square.  The lesson here is that, unfortunately, surprise attacks are frighteningly effective.

   3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary
school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the
schoolchildren?

First, he didn't finish his visit, he was to be there longer.  Second, they were apparently unconcerned because they *were* unconcerned.  It sounds cold hearted, but the Secret Service has only one job, to protect the President.  The local police force, who are always on hand for visits, have responsibility for the school children.  The Secret Service would be derelict in their duty if they were to move the President simply out of concern for the school.

   4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded
for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

Croneyism?  I would think that "rolling some heads" would be part of a conspiracy cover up, to lend it some legitimacy.

   5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the
results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested
foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in
tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

Which reports are being held secret?  I would guess that there are many investigations in many areas that are not being released as this is really an ongoing investigation.

   6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have
knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order
requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed
judge?

She was hired as a translator after 9/11, so none of her information could have been first hand.  That being said, however, her situation sounds as much like a government trying to cover up incompetence as it is one covering up a conspiracy.  Additionally, not all who claim to be whistle blowers are valid, and the gag order could truly be a real national security issue.

   7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have
flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being
detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the
US military?

It didn't, it was on various radars the whole way.

   8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of
the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses,
restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

How many hours?  Photos were not released until Sept 27, I'm not sure about the rest, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out.

   9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our
government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

Sounds like they weren't taken seriously.  Exactly how detailed were these reports, have you read them?

  10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head
of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11
and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the
ringleader of the hijackers?

They didn't do a very good job of covering it up.  The information that the money was derived from the ISI comes only from Indian intelligence, and they don't have an ax to grind.  Actually, it's very likely that there are those in Pakistani intelligence who had a hand in 9/11, possibly even the top.  But many of them hate us as much as Bin Laden and certainly wouldn't work with us.

  11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions
posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the
questions posed here?

Because they didn't to a perfect job?  Many of the questions here and from the families (not all families are asking questions, BTW) didn't really require an answer, either because they were based on inaccurate information or were not part of the commission's scope (such as questions 3 and 4 above, respectively).

  12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the
ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a
book with Condoleezza Rice?

Croneyism?  It's something that the Bush administration is good at.

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of
thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration,
a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of
the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace
and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green
Party.

Finally, and I think most importantly, there has not been anyone credibly claim to be involved in the conspiracy.  Conspiracy theories typically remain theories because proof (not evidence, proof is different) is never found.  If we look at history at known times when the government has tried to truly cover something up (such as military projects) they rarely succeed.  Even the Manhattan project was known to the Soviets, and of course there's Watergate.  They fail because someone on the "inside" lets the cat out of the bag.  The more people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely that it will be maintained.  As large a conspiracy this would have to be, makes it so unlikely that it's truly a conspiracy as to strain credibility.  It's certainly not impossible, but after 5 years we still haven't heard from any of the thousands who were supposedly involved.

Adam Ruth

Well said - just like the Fat Guy with the Red Stapler.

You lost me, I'm guessing it's a reference to Office Space, but I'm not sure what you mean by it.