Blogads

Asbestos Dangers



Mesothelioma is a dreaded cancer that is nearly always caused by just one factor: asbestos exposure.

FACT: Family members of those who are regularly exposed to high levels of asbestos also have a high risk of developing malignant mesothelioma.

Get the news, get the facts.

BUZZFLASH: Conspiratorially Speaking: United Flight 93 and 9/11

Conspiratorially Speaking: United Flight 93 and 9/11

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher

May 12, 2008

As we take a reprieve from the 2008 elections for a day, we wanted to take note of a Chicago Tribune editorial that repeats the story of how Dick Cheney approved the shooting down of United Flight 93 on 9/11:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, after planes had crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vice President Dick Cheney was in the White House bunker and had to make a momentous recommendation to President Bush, who was in flight aboard Air Force One: that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any civilian airliners that might be hijacked and headed for other targets.

Bush concurred—and shortly after, the moment of truth arrived. A military aide approached Cheney: "There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?" Cheney had thought through the complex implications of that question, had discussed it with his boss, and didn't hesitate to answer: "Yes." That plane was United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania before fighter jets could reach it.

The account originally appeared in the Washington Post years ago and came up in other stories about the post 9/11 frenzy, but nothing much was made of it. (Although whether Bush really had any role in the decision remains open to question.) The mainstream media accepted the White House account that United Flight 93 crashed before it was shot down, even though once Cheney gave his approval to shoot it down, it would probably only take a brief time before it was executed.

We're not passing judgment upon whether Flight 93 should have been shot down or not. That is, indeed, a very difficult decision. But BuzzFlash was watching contemporaneous reports come in at the time, and the first wire service stories strongly indicated that it had been shot down based on witnesses in the area and the details that they provided.

It was only later that a heroic narrative emerged that included a line that became part of the standard Bush "American Spirit" of battle theme: "Let's roll."

BuzzFlash can't say conclusively that Flight 93 was shot down, as Cheney had directed, but it certainly looks that way.

We have often taken issue with the 9/11 Truth Movement because it takes the fact that there are many unanswered questions about 9/11 and tries to answer them with often bizarre speculation. 9/11 was not an inside job, but it was something that probably could have been prevented in August of 2001 if Bush and Rice had listened to a CIA warning about Al-Qaeda preparing hijackings in the U.S. But Bush and Rice did nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to put airports on a heightened security alert.

The reality is that the Bush White House covered up much about 9/11, including its own incompetence. How much we don't know. But we do know that -- if you recall -- Bush would only be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission (which was stacked with white-washers) with Cheney at his side, and with no notes or minutes taken, and with their not being sworn in under oath, and with the "interview" occurring in the Oval Office. That sort of scenario does not inspire a great deal of credibility.

The entire reign of manipulated fear that we have been living under since 9/11 goes back to George W. Bush's cavalier indifference (along with Rice's malfeasance) to clear alarms in 2001 about Al-Qaeda coming our way.

We bring this up today because the item about United Flight 93 emerged so casually in a Chicago Tribune May 12th editorial about the need for Vice Presidents who can stand the heat. (Of course, Bush was off in a Florida elementary school classroom for a long time reading "My Pet Goat" and waiting for his handlers, including Cheney and Rove, to tell him what to do.)

Like the JFK assassination, we may never know the truth about the circumstances surrounding 9/11. The shredders have long since done their work.

But the Tribune editorial reminded us that the likelihood that Flight 93 was shot down, given the first reports and the account of Cheney ordering it shot down, is quite high. Any U.S. government, whether Democratic or Republican, would probably not want to admit that it was responsible for blowing a commercial airliner with U.S. citizens aboard out of the sky.

So a heroic narrative was, it appears, crafted to cover up the reality of what happened. At the time, we speculated that Flight 93 may have been headed for the infamous Three-Mile Island nuclear plant, just a short air distance away from where it went down. Or it may have indeed been flying back with terrorist plans to crash the plane into Congress or the White House.

We'll never know.

But on a scale of 1 to 10, BuzzFlash would put it at an 8 likelihood that Flight 93 was indeed downed by an American missile.

This is one decision, probably the only one, that we can't begrudge Dick Cheney. (If the plane had crashed into Three-Mile Island and set off a nuclear reaction, the death toll could have been catastrophic.)

But perhaps from the next president, we can be treated as adults and told the truth.

For anyone unaware...

BUZZFLASH has been donwright hostile to 9/11 Truth for YEARS.

This is kinda wild.

Minetta's testimony...

...was in reference to the plane that hit the Pentagon, NOT flight 93.

"The plane is 50, 30, 10 miles OUT"...from Shanksville? Please!
Referencing flight 93 in this regard is disinformation.
Minetta was absolutely clear that he was referring to the plane that hit the Pentagon (presumably flight 77).

Minetta witnessed Cheney's command structure following Flight 77 right into the Pentagon without defensive
measures being taken (a stand-down).

Do I believe the evidence indicates that flight 93 was shot down? Yes. And it's a separate issue.

..

Either somebody is a liar or there is "an error of recollection"

Cheney-accounts of his whereabouts :
September 19 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp2001091...

January 27, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR200607...

Minetas testimony before the 9-11 Ommission
May 23, 2003
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_20...

Obviously, both accounts can't be true !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Precisely

"Referencing flight 93 in this regard is disinformation."

The parallels with the deliberately obscured Mineta testimony regarding the 9:25 Pentagon exchange are obvious and telling: an anonymous messenger returns twice with a mileage "countdown", requests final confirmation of an "order" from Cheney, who then somewhat angrily confirms the order.

This 10:10 am UA93 shootdown order story appears to exist in order to hijack and occlude Mineta's narrative.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Interesting, but doesn't this reinforce the myth that 4 planes

with passengers were actually hijacked that day & flown by Arab James Bond supermen?

Many people in the truth movement believe that the "airliners" that struck the WTC were likely drones of some sort. Furthermore, I myself am quite certain that AA-77 is not what blew-up at the Pentagon.

Who of us really knows if Flight UA-93 took off that day?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

The thing worth noting...

is that BUZZFLASH is flinching. Maybe it's subtle disinfo, maybe the editor is uninformed, I dunno. It's the only thing I've seen on their site worth a hill of beans in a solid year.

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Yes, I did say it was interesting. And yes, it could be subtle

disinfo and/or a limited hangout regarding Dick Cheney.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Remember that "Operation Northwoods" 45 years ago was

going to substitute drones for airliners, invent fictitious passengers & have fake funerals, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

"Certainty"?

I am not sure WHAT happened at the Pentagon with "certainty" and therefore leave it open.
My "speculation" would be that the planes were remotely controlled.
What I do know about the Pentagon with certainty is that it WAS attacked successfully
a full 35 minutes AFTER the second tower in NY was hit (i.e., an attack WAS happening).
Minetta's testimony reinforces chain-of-command knowledge of this.

If I speak of near "certainty" I think of the impossible/improbable destruction of the three towers in NY.
Why? The physics laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Add eyewitness
accounts of explosions, video, analysis of dust, analysis of steel temperatures and molten metal.

The Truth Movement should be careful of what it knows vs. what it suspects.

My certainty is that the Official Conspiracy Theory is not proved.

Since you nor anyone else "certainly" can't give any plausible

answers to these questions, I am "certain" that AA-77 did not slam through the Pentagon:

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6.5 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 of 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

What happened to the airliners virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16’ foot initial impact hole?

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

(BTW, it the airliners were being flown by remote-control as you suggest, then what do you make of all the phone calls purporting that Arab madmen had sliced-up the pilots & were flying them?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Remote-controlled AA77?

What if the AA77 had been taken under remote control?

This seems to be Jim Hoffman's view.

Keep in mind that it's easier and less risky to launch a

missile or drone than to take over control a commercial aircraft loaded with pilots, crew, & passengers (with radios, possible other communications on board, etc.) & silently kidnap them for hundreds of miles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I saw this earlier...

He says, "9/11 was not an inside job" (a phrase I particularly hate), but states it as an opinion. Then goes on to say, "The reality is that the Bush White House covered up much about 9/11, including its own incompetence. How much we don't know."

If we don't know how much they're covering up, then how can he state emphatically that "9/11 was not an inside job" (a phrase I particularly hate)?


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

The next editorial...

"Well, we can't say conclusively that Al Qaeda is a Western intelligence asset... but it sure looks that way..."

He wrote it...

In the "they would never" tone.



Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

"Inside Job" still applies...

I wouldn't detest an apt description Jon- what else was/is it?

I don't like...

How we say that 9/11 WAS an inside job (what is the definition of an "inside job"? Most people thinks it means that the attacks were completely orchestrated from top to bottom, including the news footage, the witnesses, etc... everything, but there are different levels of complicity in my opinion), and then say there are unanswered questions. If there are unanswered questions, then how do we KNOW that "9/11 was an inside job?" My message has evolved over the years to be that they have certainly earned the title of suspect for the crimes of 9/11. They being people in the Bush Administration, other people in our Government, other people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, and possibly Britain.

What I think is funny is that over time, we have seen different stories come out that basically validate/reiterate what we have said for a LONG time. That the testimony from KSM was obtained through torture, and discredits what he said. That Philip Zelikow should never have been head of the 9/11 Commission. That NORAD lied. That Flight 93 may have been shot down. That Hani Hanjour probably wasn't the pilot of Flight 77. That Sibel Edmonds allegations are something that should be investigated, and taken seriously. That the FBI's most wanted poster for Osama Bin Laden doesn't list the 9/11 attacks. Yet, sites like Buzzflash, continue to treat US like children.


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Of course it was an "inside job".

"How we say that 9/11 WAS an inside job (what is the definition of an 'inside job'?"

In the most general sense, "inside job" means: The 9/11 attacks simply could not have been carried out without the substantial complicity of high-level U.S. government operatives.

"If there are unanswered questions, then how do we KNOW that '9/11 was an inside job?'

Well, just because there are "unanswered questions" doesn't mean there isn't already enough evidence for a reasonable person to come to that obvious conclusion.

Regards,
jpsmith123

In my view, the unanswered questions...

... tend to point to official complicity.

Although there is more (MUCH more), all that one really needs to do to understand that 9/11 was an "inside job" is to realize that the only three total skyscraper demises in history could not have resulted from office fires and random damage.

9/11 wasn't completely orchestrated from top to bottom?

You mean no one planned the most elaborate and successful attacks in a single day, on our own soil in US History? It all just happened? Someone had to plan 9/11. If not a rogue element of the Bush Government, then who? That guy no one can find that lives in a cave somewhere?

9/11 was planned for many, many years...

... down to the smallest detail. Nothing was left for chance. Or for the whims of some would-be hijackers incapable of flying aeroplanes.

Ace Elevator Started Big WTC Maintenance.....

Ace Elevator Company, now conviently non existent, started a big elevator maintenance project in the WTC towers in January 2001, just as Bush became president.

My guess is tha once it was known Bush would be president the plan went into full fledged "going final" operational mode, IMHO.

penguin

Do you have sourcing for this Ace elevator claim? The names of the executives there would be a good start.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

In 1993 Otis Elevator had the contract for the WTC

In 1993, they worked throughout the disaster trying to get all the people that were stuck in the elevators out. It is considered part of their job to assist in any emergencies that occur in their buildings.

However, in 1994 Otis Elevator lost their contract for the WTC to a new and untested company, Ace Elevator.

Ace Elevator pulled their crews out of the buildings right after the 2nd plane hit, leaving behind 100's of trapped victims.

----------------------------------------

The Elevator Man's Tale

Robert Jones

I’m from Montgomery. I work for Ace Elevator.

I originally started down at the trade center in 1973 with Otis Elevator when the towers were just about completed, and I was transferred out of the trade center in ’75. After that I worked for Otis Elevator. I came back to the trade center in ’98, and up ’til September 11 was working as a mechanic on the elevators.

On the morning of September 11 at about a quarter to nine, a partner and I came out of a motor room and walked over to the windows overlooking the Hudson River.

That was on the 43rd floor. And as we turned to walk away, that’s when the first plane hit and we heard the explosion.
We turned to look out, at least I did, turned and looked out over the Hudson and at the other tower, which was nearby, which overlapped B Tower. A Tower was hit first. Within a few seconds, shards of the plane and pieces of the building started to impact B Tower.

You could hear the explosion. You could feel it.

So right after that explosion, we were ordered to leave the building.

There was a story that came out in USA Today that said we all ran out like cowards. The reporter, Dennis Couchin, has been advised as to what had happened and he’s going to rewrite his story. I’m just putting this in right now because I feel it’s necessary, because the men that were there in ’93, most of them, a lot of them were still there.

I regret that we had to leave the building. This is something I still feel a lot of heartache over. And there’s not much we could’ve done. And there is nothing you could do.

http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc., established in 1980, is now celebrating its 20th anniversary. We are proud to be recognized as the largest privately owned Elevator Company in the tri-state area. We continue to serve our valued customers in all aspects of the vertical transportation industry: new installations (traction, hydraulic and escalators), modernizations, service and repairs.

Our offices are strategically located in Palisades Park, NJ and Two World Trade Center, where we are currently modernizing and servicing the entire fleet.

http://www.nycooperative.com/Contractors/elevators.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R

Thursday, December 30, 2004, Vol. 8, No. 287

A.C.E. ELEVATOR: Taps Rattet Pasternak as Bankruptcy Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc., asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York for permission to employ Rattet,
Pasternak & Gordon Oliver, LLP, as its bankruptcy counsel.

Rattet Pasternak will:

a) give the Debtor advice with respect to its powers and
duties as debtor-in-possession in the continued
management of its property and affairs;

b) negotiate with creditors and work out a plan of
reorganization and take the necessary legal steps in
order to effectuate such a plan including, if need be,
negotiations with the creditors and other parties in
interest;

c) prepare the necessary answers, orders, reports and other
legal papers that are required in this proceeding;

d) appear before the Court to protect the interests of the
Debtor and to represent the Debtor in all matters
pending before the Court; and

e) perform all other legal services for the Debtor which
may be necessary for the preservation of the Debtor's
estate and to promote the best interests of Debtor, its
creditors and its estate.

Jonathan S. Pasternak, Esq., is the lead attorney in this chapter
11 proceeding.

http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/041230.mbx

Richard Gage ae 9/11

I have heard Richard Gage founder of ae 9/11 truth mention this recently in radio interviews.

You hate the phrase, "9/11 was an inside job"? Are you mad?

I think most everyone knows or has a good idea of what an "inside job" is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

What is the purpose...

Of being so aggressive other than to start fights?


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

"Inside job" is a nice, short, fast way to communicate

It's not too specific, which is good, since we don't know the specifics. But we do know, that without massive, coordinated help from the "the inside," 911 could not have taken place.

I bought a T-shirt from Alex Jones that says "911 was an inside job," for just that reason. Communicates quickly and clearly.

http://www.sheilacasey.com

Gatekeeper sites

I was a Buzzflash fan until I realized they wouldn't address 9/11. They, like many so called progressive sites have proven to be an enormous disappointment. Barrie Zwicker is right, 9/11 is the touchstone. Now with the Truth Movement gaining traction, sites like Buzzflash are beginning to realize they are becoming irrelevant.

So was I

"I was a Buzzflash fan until I realized they wouldn't address 9/11"

SO WAS I.

. They, like many so called progressive sites have proven to be an enormous disappointment. Barrie Zwicker is right, 9/11 is the touchstone. Now with the Truth Movement gaining traction, sites like Buzzflash are beginning to realize they are becoming irrelevant.

I HOPE SO.

The comments on the article at Buzzflash are telling the editors something. Will they listen?