Terror against the United States - the unanswered questions
We are not soothsayers.
We cannot say with certainty what happened on September 11, 2001 - that is, what really happened, behind the scenes.
But the following report from the semi-official 'N.Y. Times' makes it clear that either Americans are being lied to by the those in the highest places - which if true has the gravest implications - or else the rulers of Washington's New World Order are criminally negligent.
In analyzing the 9-11 nightmare, we were puzzled by the official response to the so-called third plane. That is the one that left Dulles Airport, flew to Ohio, near the West Virginia and Kentucky borders, turned around, flew back to Washington and struck the Pentagon.
Concerning this plane, we asked: how could it stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen by U.S. air defense forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington and hit the Pentagon without being spotted and therefore intercepted?
The 'N.Y. Times' published the following explanation (September 15, 2001):
This explanation makes matters worse.
If it was difficult to believe that the third plane was not spotted, then it is a good deal harder to believe that it was spotted and tracked for over half an hour and yet nothing was done because officials "didn't know what to do."
Why didn't they force the plane down and failing that, shoot it down? Before you think, "Because, as the article says, they didn't have a procedure for handling such an occurrence," note the following comment from deputy defense secretary Wolfowitz. Talking about the fourth plane, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania:
"Could have shot it down if necessary."
If they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why did they not shoot down the third? Once they knew these were suicide hijackings - and surely they knew that by around 9:00 am - why would they wait?
And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?
Officials knew the first and second planes had hit highly visible symbols of US power. They knew this third plane was heading back to Washington. Couldn't they be reasonably sure that the target was a symbol of US power in Washington? Then why didn't they fully evacuate the Pentagon?
The White House has tried to confuse the issue regarding this question. They claim the plane changed course - that originally it was heading for the White House:
But according to CBS, this is not the case:
The White House denies this:
If the White House is right and CBS is wrong, why did the 'Times' report that:
Given the stories from CBS and the 'Times,' and given that the plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, aren't the news reports more believable than the White House denial?
And since in any case there could be no way of being absolutely sure where the plane would strike, why weren't all the most sensitive buildings evacuated to prevent:
And why wasn't this plane, the third plane, forced down or failing that, shot down?
Regarding the fourth plane:
So what do we have here?
A) Officials knew that the third plane, and quite possibly the second, was set to strike important targets.
B) They tracked the third plane for at least half an hour.
C) Supposedly George Bush, Jr. needed to approve shooting the plane down.
D) But instead of going into an emergency meeting, he continued his visit to an elementary school, hearing about goats.
What we have here is either criminal negligence beyond belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is repeating a cover story whose purpose is to explain away the obvious flaw in the original story: namely, that a plan could be hijacked in Ohio, and fly all the way back to Washington without being spotted.
And if the 'N.Y. Times' story is a lie, then those who fed the 'Times' this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in high places and they are directly involved in the murder of God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800 casualties the media speaks of in Washington either because they planned these attacks, perhaps working through Islamist groups secretly controlled by the CIA or they knew the attacks were going to happen and wanted to let them happen. The obvious motive: to create a seeming justification for extreme military action. And that is why they did not allow the Air Force to stop possibly the second and certainly the third planes.
So there you have it - either criminal negligence, including Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are slaughtered, or treason.
Given these amazing facts, available in the mainstream media, why is there no call for an investigation?
Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to justice. Let us begin at home.