Bill Moyers Slams 9/11 Truthers

[Gene Scarborough]

Just give me the address and I'll gladly send some good NC home brew = our wine is reputed to be the best before the Civil War destroyed it / our corn whiskey, peach brandy, other fruits of the spirits are unchanged!!!!

Don't take me too seriously good old NY boy!!! Our Southern sense of humor tries to come through at all times!

Also remember: NASCAR is a direct result of running moonshine from the mountains to Atlanta where visiting Yankees enjoy!! It takes the edge off their snarly attitudes from freezing in the winter and enduring the same heat and humidity we enjoy down South.

Is it a requirement to be snarly if you live north of the Mason-Dixon Line???????

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Here is the best website I know concerning 9/11:



The simple question is: Why did not the USAF intercept and, if necessary, down the 4 commercial jets which went off the Air Controllers' screens--and which were flying over the most heavily air-based parts of the country???

All the things which have been posted since sometimes confuse the basic issues with more speculation than necessary. It matters little about the archetectural details of the collapses. I watched the CNN reports on that day. I saw the collapses. Everything seemed quite plain. No large buildings can withstand a strike from a large jet loaded with fuel for cross-country travel. The terrorists were clever and effective BUT the USAF practices, with efficiency, the standing order for stopping jets hijacked and heading to do damage.

The only explaination I see is: Standing orders were countermanded by the Commander-in-Chief or his designated decision maker. The COC was George W. Bush, Cheney was the second in command, Rumsfield was close on. Alexander Haige claimed he was in charge when the Constitution is clear the President Pro-Tem of the House is third. Does this not sound strange as well???

Just answer a simple question with some common sense: What the hell really happened???

[ET]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Well Said ET and on top of your Common sense there are also a lot of non conspiracy site that debunk one or all of the theories presented by the "Truthers" with good solid facts.

As one wag said, with all that the truthers claim to know perhaps they where involved in such a plot. Of course I believe that is a stretch but I have begun to wonder if there may not be some genuine anti Americans involved in a plot to use the truther claims to ferment civil discord in this country. I mentioned this to another forum member via E mail a few days ago.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET & Ed---

I find it naive that neither of you is asking what I have = how can protocol be put aside and the standing order not pursued?

1) There was certainly time to intercept
2) There is certinly successful practice of such on a regular basis--my pilot friend did it years ago without the sophistocated locating equipment we have today
3) The USAF was not shut down for the day
4) If we can't intercept and force land aircraft, then what is the reason for having such at astronomical cost

I think I would be safer under a rock than depending on an Air Force which is worthess and having 4 targets with none being pursued or stopped. I live right under the takeoff pattern of Cherry Point USMC Base. Their jets go with afterburner over my head every day--sometimes so low you can see the pilot's orange helmet. If they can't find the Bombing Range at Lake Matamoskete, my raised hairs are a total waste of confidence.

[ET]

[KeithE]

OK there appears to be nobody on BL that has looked into the links I provided (repeated below) and provided agreements (other than Gene) or meaningful rebutals:

/ and companion

exhaustive list of mainstream press articles mostly mentioned only once and forgotten.



by those families who lost loved ones and their


Perhaps we have to do this one suspicious data point at a time so as to not overwhelm you. Try this one if you would please. It shows that there was both exploded and unexploded thermite (a powerful explosives) present in the WTC 1 &2 rubble pile. That does not happen with just a plane impact, fire, and gravity. Nor can the presence be understood as comng from anything other than deliberate planting.

I'll keep addng a suspicious data point periodically to this post in the hopes some seeds of doubt appear. Cumulatively the argument for a true investigation is overwhelming. Just think you could shut up all the nasty 9/11 truthers - what do you have to lose?

[ET]

[David Flick]

[Gene Scarborough]

This is turning into a royal pile of "who-who," as Jeff Foxworthy would put it. You can argue back and forth ad nuseum in the fashion done above. Most of it deals with secondary matters of why the buildings fell.

They fell = end of story.

It is not surprising to me they fell because the high elevation of the impact plus the amount of jet fuel plus the weight and power of a high speed strike. The actual issue should be how did they withstand the assault as long as they did? Any building that large has bending and moving just with the wind. It must be engineered to withstand such natural stresses, but heat is not computed among them. Steel softens in heat and the powerful natural stresses generate forces of destruction. There need not be any conspiracy beyond planes hijacked to make 9/11 real.

What is the problem in sticking with the basics? We have a free society so it is almost impossible to stop terrorists without violating basic citizen freedom. We can infiltrate / monitor / scan to our heart's content, but with massive numbers of people entering the air-transport system there is plenty of room for intentional destruction by one willing to sacrifice his life in the process. That mindset of hatred and self-sacrifice was at work for long years of planning without sufficient coordination of our self-protection.

At the most simple point of the plot the USAF had standing orders to react. That is an automatic reaction which did not happen and it was in the hands of the Executive Branch of our government. The "WHY" of this is the core problem. No one has addressed it beyond saying "interceptors were not ready." You mean to try and tell me that much "who-who" just happened!!!! Give me a break!

[KeithE]

The article that ET added from 911debunkers is what I mean when I said, these sites very often do not even deal with the points the truthers make at all. They dream up argumnets to refute. For instance, both Steve Jones' and Nels Harrit's independently-performed chem analysis found red and gray specks (indicative of a certain nano-thermite high explosive) not yellow residue which is indicative of sulfur as ET's article mis-focusses on. They battle some imaginary foe and the onlooking sheep, whose mind jumps at any argument supported their apriori veiwpoints, say that just "common sense".

Much more to say that will have to wait until tonight (including angle cuts - also not brought up by either Jones' or Harrit's chem anlysis papers, but has been brought up by other truthers). But if you have time, please read the two articles thoroughly - one being of work in this area and the other being that comes from 911debunkers that ET provided).

[KeithE]

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

[ET]

You again confuse the issue, Gene. I did not claim that there were no AF planes on alert. The referenced web site provided an answer for your question about why aircraft were not dispatched in a manner in which you find agreeable. If that doesn't provide an adequate and rational explanation for your question, then nothing I can compose as a response will suffice either.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET--

If I read you right you are making an excuse for USAF inactivity in the face of a much cited "Stand Down" order. I read the article you reference and find NOTHING which disuades me that an Executive Order was not in effect.

I fail to see your point in taking this as any valid answer to my still most important question. With Mach 2-3 capable fighters which you admit were in the "ready system," it is totally inconceivable that intercepts were not made. I have already told you of my friend who intercepted with his Voodoo (of a 50's pedigree) quickly finding the Commercial Airliner with transponder turned off entering coastal airspace in the NE Sector. His plane was Mach 1 capable and he obeyed standing orders in his day.

Within an easy 30-minute time frame each of those 9/11 airliners could and should have been intercepted. Remember, the command includes a warning by the fighter as it flies up beside the cockpit of the errant large commercial jet whose airspeed is under 600 mph---wheels down / wheels up says, "Sir you must land and I am close enough now to crash into you and bail out myself."

There are reports of intercept launches, but those planes were directed over the Atlantic Ocean rather than NY or DC. I fail to see how any of this defeats the allegation that a "Stand Down" order was in effect.

[ET]

[ET]

[Gene Scarborough]

OK---let's make it more complete then:

(1) Why were so few aircraft on the ready except for an order to stand down which means rediness was at the minimum?
(2) Why was a warning on the radio net to USAF heard by me which says, "This is not an exercise, it is real time!"
(3) If you are right---and you are depending on media for this---somebody failed in their standard duty and the Bush Admistration is still at fault those planes were not intercepted and forced to land in the best senerio / worst shot down.
(4) Note the smirk on George Bush's face as he sat in the classroom in Florida and kept on listening to children over going immediately to his secure phone to do something well within his Executive powers.
(5) The President's Security Briefs clearly had warnings of an impending attack---so was he stupid or what????

The ball is in your court, buddy!!!