|
I think that FDR knew that
some sort of attack would be taking place. The scale of the attack on
Pearl Harbor was greater than expected but it did allow FDR to bring the US into
the WW 2. It allowed for a political consensus.
I think the same probably held true for
9/11. Something was going to happen. Imminent. But where and
how was unknown. It allowed the US to take dramatic action against
terrorists who had been attacking US interests for some time. It allowed
for a political consensus which has since been whittled away by a series of
mis-steps.
We have to assume that officials are acting
in our interests. Sure there are corrupt cops, firefighters, etc.
etc. But until we have found them guilty of something or the other, it is
these people who have our trust. That they occupy such delicate positions
in society also means that they must be held to a higher standard of
behaviour. Police can carry guns. They stand between us and the "bad
guys". They must not abuse their position of societal trust.
Nor should politicians. That is why
removal from office is possible and in some cases desirable (along with jail
sentences where applicable.)
arthur
From: Darryl or Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 10/12/2006 7:22 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Cc: Karen Watters Cole; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] 10/11 Cordell, Arthur: ECOM wrote:
OK, here's the thing...I believe that a comparison can be drawn between 9/11 and 10/11 disasters because though the plane was small, it was going at a high speed, enough to scatter debris from the crash up to twenty blocks. It crashed into a much smaller building at a more vulnerable spot in terms of vertical susceptibility, but the scale of plane to building might be considered comparable enough if one is to use the official explanation of how the 9/11 blasts mushroomed into infernos that resulted in two huge precision implosions and the subsequent collapse of un-hit CIA building 7.I am a "grassy knoll" type of person and so don't believe in the Warren Commiss. I also believe that there is much more to each story than we have been told. So looking closely at almost anything can lead one to believe in cover-up and conspiracy. But sometimes, if only for sanity, one has to accept--for the moment-- the official version. The official version for 9/11 is probably quite close to what happenned. (I think storing fuel in the twin towers made the fires and explosions much worse---I understand that yet another report is to come out in 2007 on the structural integrity of the buildings.) -----Original Message----- From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:26 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; Darryl or Natalia; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Futurework] 10/11 Yes, that is true. You can't compare a small plane with a fully fuelled 767, that's why those cross-country flights were chosen. But in the aftermath of 9/11, structural engineers and construction experts stated that they were astounded that both towers fell, because they were designed to withstand such an impact. Furthermore, oral histories taken by First Responders indicate multiple smaller explosions were heard. Lingering doubts will remain. Pieces of the puzzle we may not know for certain for a long time, just as there are still doubts about the full truth of the Warren Commission. I am not sure many want to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Hopefully, historians will dare to dig and reveal. Kwc Arthur wrote: Compare a fully fuelled 767 jet plane with a light prop one engine plane. The jet probably flying at twice or three times the speed of the single engine plane. Natalia wrote: Anyone else notice that Cory Lidle's unfortunate plane crash into a 52-storey residential building in Manhattan failed to result in the building's collapse, despite the speed and hit at the 20th floor level? Strangely, few died, and thousands didn't. Could it be that no demolition strength explosives were installed ahead of time, and that Dick Cheney and the DOD didn't need to hamper emergency response time by scheduling a mock air attack for the same day? I witnessed the second plane attack on the WTC, saw re-runs of the first tower attack that morning. These planes had difficulty aligning themselves for attack position because of the number and height of the buildings around them, and in the case of the second tower, the plane circled round tower II for a better shot. This precluded speed. The second plane actually looked clumsy enough to practically slide off the tower's facade. Er, I'm sure it's been pointed out that the official version of 9/11 is just another conspiracy theory. Yet having to believe it for the sake of sanity is tantamount to putting faith in the Bush administration's ever shifting reasons for invading Iraq, or having to believe that there have been few Iraqi casualties. The official version came out of an administration that has consistently put the mob to shame in its record of public service. It has consistently shown that money and power are the drive behind every major move made, so why is it such a stretch to arrive at the likelihood that a "situation" was created or greatly assisted to realize those greedy goals? War hawks, with huge war related investment portfolios; how could you underestimate their greed to the point that you actually choose to believe they adhere to any modicum of ethical behaviour? Curiously, Natalia |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
