replying from a point of view substantially more favourable to the conspiracy point of view than most list subscribers, but still with the basic message to the 9/11 truth community "give up on this, it's a blind alley":
1. There is an interesting point here; there is reasonable work that has been done that does give some reason to believe that there was some abnormal trading activity in the days before 9/11. Much better to refer to it as "abnormal" trading rather than "insider", however - insider trading is one possible explanation of the facts, not the only explanation. What "coverup" are you referring to here exactly; AFAIAA, all the normal information one would expect to have about NYSE trading is available. 2. WTC7 is still being investigated and there are still a few theories going round about why it collapsed, but it would be a rash man who put his counter on any other eventual result than "fire damage". The BBC thing is also pretty underwhelming; it was an incredibly chaotic day and it would be the easiest thing in the world for a reporter to hear the words "is about to collapse" and then say "has collapsed". I have a certain amount of time for the more rational versions of the "planned demolition" theories but they have serious shortcomings which need to be recognised. 3. I've read them and as I say, the planned demolitionists have a few anomalies on their side, but the balance of evidence really does favour fire damage. In general, my preference is to avoid this topic entirely as it is so effing hard to separate the genuine points from the nonsense. It is quite likely that what we are seeing here is the result of a successful disinformation campaign, but as a result of that, it is impossible to say what the underlying truth is. 4. War games go on all the time, so I am not 100% convinced that the fact they were happening on a particular day needs explanation. In general, there are loads of holes in the stories given about why interceptions did not happen, I agree. 5. I really do think that anyone who is making definitive statements about the arrangements for the defense of the Pentagon has to acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that he doesn't have the full picture. 6. This is a valid point; there are lots and lots of anomalies about the identities of the hijackers and a whole lot more information would be nice. In general, though, what is the point of an independent investigation? Nobbling an independent investigation is just about the easiest thing an intelligence agency ever does. The conspiracy community really needs to face facts here - while there are considerable anomalies in a number of official statements, we simply don't have any kind of evidence about what "really" happened. Furthermore, we have no real prospect of getting any. The conspiracy buffs do good work and occasionally strike really important historical information (and IMO they deserve to be taken a *lot* more seriously and laughed at a *lot* less), but we need to be realistic here; they aren't going to discover the Rosetta Stone here. Therefore there is a limit to how much one should make any important political point depend on a particular version of what "really" happened on 9/11. I disagree with Paul's view that this is the key to Middle East policy; even if every word in "Loose Change" is true and comes to be accepted as true, the Middle East will still have a lot of oil and will still be the location of the State of Israel, and so the US will still have roughly the same foreign policy interests there. best dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Zarembka Sent: 16 March 2007 13:05 To: [email protected] Subject: 911 considered/reconsidered -- a radical intervention Jim and others, Bush et al. have claimed Osama bin Laden as the top conspirator; is it now to be Mohammed? In any case, 'WHO done it' is the question (remember 'Dragnet'): I'd recommend a dispassionate examination of the following (if you don't have the time, at least call for a genuinely independent investigation with normal subpeona powers used in any criminal investigation): 1. The cover-up of insider trading beforehand. (It is not the trading itself, so much as cover-up of the evidence -- you could read my own chapter in HIDDEN HISTORY and the academic evidence offered, e.g., an article last July in the "Journal of Business".) 2. The collapse of the WTC 7 -- not even analyzed by the Commission. Read serious arguments on all sides of the issue and come to your own conclusion. (Just in two last weeks, a video has surfaced that a BBC reporter, probably reading from a teleprompter, stated that WTC 7 had collapsed -- 23 minutes BEFORE it happened and with the building in her background! BBC is really squirming on this one.) 3. The collapses of the twin Towers. Read serious arguments on all sides of the issue and come to your own conclusion (which may only be that we do need an truly independent investigation). 4. The military's war games scheduled for the same morning and the 'excuses' offered why interceptions did not occur. 5. The fact that the Pentagon -- the most important military facility in the whole world -- was undefended, even after reports of hijacking beginning one hour and twenty earlier. (You need not worry about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or a missle did, because either result would not damage other aspects of the investigation. Same for what happened in PA.) 6. Ten alleged hijackers -- both named and with pictures -- reported ALIVE after 9-11, often in mainstream press reports. 7. The coverup process represented by very many things, but you can start with Rice's co-author Philip Zelikow being the Executive Director of the Commission (Executive Directors are the single most important persons in such investigations). Incidentally, Cindy Sheehan hasn't gotten to this point but she is acknowledging that, while she doesn't have time for 9-11 investigation, it is needed. If one can explain all the above away to one's satisfaction, then a new, serious commission would't be needed. In my opinion, if we don't destroy the JUSTIFICATION for the Middle East wars, we won't stop war. 9-11 is overwhelmingly the KEY justification. The problem, however, is that doubting 9-11 raises MANY other questions which would call for a radical analysis of the U.S. political economy (which what PEN-L is about). Paul Z. ************************************************************************ (Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research" (Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND & SYRIA, forthcoming Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
