By Gad, I do believe that we are getting very close!!! It was a
high-level home-grown party! Arabs nowhere in sight! Some
robot planes (small) thrown in the mix...


9-11: The Flight Of The Bumble Planes
Duh, complicated, but hey, it works for me!
How about you, Ma? Yes, son...


 From: "Carol A. Valentine" <skywriter@erols.com>
> > by Snake Plissken
> > as told to Carol A. Valentine
> > Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
> > http:www.Public-Action.com
> > Copyright, March 2002
> > May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
> > See
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/bumble.html

> > To hear the bumble planes, visit above URL
> >
> > March 10, 2002 -- Eureka!  One of my readers, who calls himself
> > "Snake Plissken," has put it together.  He tells us why the passenger
> > lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how
> > remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why
> > the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no
> > Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon ....
> >
> > By George, I think he's got it!
> >
> > My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days.
> > With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted
> > some reference URLs, and made minor edits.  My comments and additions
> > will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep
> > the following in mind:
> >
> > "Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be
> > done.  The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible
> > depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences.  This, in the
> > main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the
> > spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you
> > have not left out.  In short a performance of magic is largely a
> > demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of
> > psychology." (John Mulholland, "The Art of Illusion," Charles
> > Scribner & Sons, 1944.)
> >
> > In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Carol,
> >
> > You did some fine research on 9-11.  You came within inches of
> > solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest
> > of the story.  Let me explain by making a suggestion.
> >
> > Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just
> > one bee.  You can't do it.  You get confused.   Think of the 9-11
> > jets as bumblebees.  Matter of fact, you could even call Operation
> > 911 "Flight of the Bumble Planes."
> >
> > I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the
> > truth.  Substitute information, omit information, scramble the
> > information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage).  All
> > four methods were used on the 9-11 incident.  Let me lay out the
> > clues and show you where they lead.
> >
> > THE CLUES
> >
> > *  First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights:  Many have
> > remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets.  You
> > might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four
> > coast-to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few
> > minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists?  Nuts.  That's
> > your first clue.
> >

> > * Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash:  The second clue
> > comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question
> > about what she saw.  You could hear it in her voice.  If she was the
> > state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between
> > their knees before she stopped talking.
> >
> > What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up.
> > She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC
> > tower, the North tower.  She was certain in her description -- most
> > people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet
> > and a smaller plane.
> >
> > [ CV cmments:
> > [ In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
> > October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first
> > September 11 report:  "We were told it was a light commuter airplane.
> > It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
>
> [
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
> >
> > Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the
> > "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a
> > hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer
> > felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make
> > of the plane.  So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.
> >
> > *  Third clue -- Pentagon Crash:  The first report on NBC said there
> > had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport.  No mention of a
> > plane.
> >
> > If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who
> > said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon.  Notice that this
> > description is similar to the first report about the WTC.  A small
> > plane, not a big, round nosed passenger jet.
> >
> > Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole
> > thing" from his car on the freeway.  It was an American Airlines
> > passenger jet.  Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he
> > was gawking.  And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the
> > light poles with it's belly as it came in low.  And that story paved
> > the way for the official truth.
> >
> > * Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site.  By now
> > lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the
> > story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon.  What's the problem?
> > The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between
> > the two jet engines.
> >
> > [
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200
> >
> > The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.
> >
> > [ US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg
> >
> > After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one
> > could see the plane.  The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone --
> > not steel and glass.  The aluminum wings of the plane should have
> > been ripped off and left outside the building.  We should have seen
> > wing wreckage.  But there was none.
> >
> > [ CV comments:
> > [ I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various
> > networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after
> > 9-11.  After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.
> >
> > [ See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military
> > District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo,
> > <
jadinardo@hotmail.com>.  By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that
> > inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11.  Certainly the
> > damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives
> > would have been easy to install. ]
> >
> > [
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6
> >
> > [
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/capitolview.html
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5
> >
> > [
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/cars_damaged.html
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2 ]
> >
> > [The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with
> > contemporaneously published photos in the popular press.  See, for
> > example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.
> >
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg
> > [ and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26,
> 27.
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg
> >
> > [ This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army
> > Military District of Washington site.  It unwittingly demonstrates
> > that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage.  Think now: a hundred thousand
> > pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels,
> > luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context
> > scrap of God-knows what was shown by the Pentagon.
> >
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
> > http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0
> >
> > [ In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's
> > work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of
> > Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon.  Now, magically, new photos
> > of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear.  Check out
> > the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls
> > for copies of these fakes.  Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as
> > real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake
> > opposition.
> >
> > [ OK.  Now back to Snake Plissken]
> >
> > * Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash:  As you point out
> >
> > [ Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS,
>  
http://www.Public_action.com/911/robotplane.html ]
> >
> > the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77
> > said they were hopeless.  "It was like they had hardly even ever
> > driven a car ..."  The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and
> > dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.
> >
> > Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before
> > it hit the Pentagon.  The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to
> > make its target.  The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert
> > pilots.
> >
> > Something is wrong here.  Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots.
> > That is your fifth clue.
> >
> > * Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off:  As you point out, the
> > "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information
> > showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude.  But the FAA
> > also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the
> > planes were still visible.  Why would the "hijackers" shut the
> > transponders off, you asked?  You are looking at your sixth clue.
> >
> > ["Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?"  Part 1
> > [ 
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html  ]
> >
> > * Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks:  As you point out, some
> > of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.
> > [See above-cited URL.]  That's your seventh clue.
> >
> > * Eighth Clue  -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit:  Have a look at the
> > footage of the second WTC tower being hit.  The plane almost missed
> > the tower and just managed to hit the corner.  Yet the first plane
> > struck its target dead center.   That's your eighth clue.
> >
> > [ See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:

> > [
http://www.Public_Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/southtowerpath.jpg
> >
> > HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED
> >
> > * A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United
> > Airlines jet.  It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of
> > some NORAD types.  Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it
> > parked at a military airfield for the moment.
> >
> > * The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially
> > low that day.  Easy to do.  Just monkey with the airline computers
> > and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold.  Include some
> > of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.
> >
> > *  After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut
> > down.  There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is
> > this:  Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This
> > is the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  There is a national
> > emergency.  We are under terrorist attack.  Turn off your
> > transponders.  Maintain radio silence.  Here is your new flight plan.
> > You will land at [name] military air base."
> >
> > * The pilots turn off the transponders.  The FAA weenies lose the
> > information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the
> > altitude of the planes.  Of course the planes can still be seen on
> > conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.
> >
> > *  What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths?  We'll never
> > see the real records, for sure.  But in the spy movies, when the spy
> > wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while
> > the spy goes the other.  If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do
> > that:  As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to
> > fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude.  The
> > blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes.  Alternately, a
> > plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane.  Again,
> > the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside
> > the hive.  The original planes proceed to the military airfield and
> > air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips
> > ...
> >
> > That's probably close to the way it was managed.  Like I say, we'll
> > never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.
> >
> > [ For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see

> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
> > [ For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
> > [
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
> > [ http://w> > [ You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by
> > using the search engine.]
> >
> > * A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with
> > incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown
> > into the first WTC tower.  That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness
> > saw.
> >
> > * The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like
> > a United airlines passenger jet,  is sent aloft and flown by remote
> > control  - without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.
> > Beautiful!  Everyone has pictures of that.
> >
> > Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower?  Because the
> > remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a
> > big stubborn passenger jet.  The operators brought the jet in on a
> > tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns
> > like the Queen Mary.  They brought it in too fast and too close to do
> > the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.
> >
> > * Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with
> > incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the
> > Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.
> >
> > * Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen.  Trusted media whores "witness"
> > the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757,
> > Flight 77.  Reporters lie better than lawyers.
> >
> > * Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the
> > military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93.  If you've put some of
> > your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.
> >
> > * Flight 93 is taken aloft.
> >
> > * Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which.
> > Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions.  Easiest
> > way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a
> > headline if they find a foot in their front garden.  No mass graves
> > will ever be discovered, either.
> >
> > * The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was
> > actually headed towards the White House but changed its course.
> >
> > * The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax
> > lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a
> > non-existence plane (Flight 77).
> >
> > * The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and
> > artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub
> > really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the
> > story about the pet goat ....
> >
> > So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up.  The
> > other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist
> > somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.
> >
> > The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an
> > airplane crash, just like the newspapers said.  Only for most of
> > them, it was the wrong crash.  But that's as close to the truth as
> > the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.
> >
> > WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
> >
> > So there you have it.  Not four planes.  More than fourJÓ
> >
> > off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight
> > 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles.
> > Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the
> > original passenger jets.
> >
> > The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike
> > Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote
> > control.  You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough.  The
> > mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.
> >
> > Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you
> > described in "NO SUICIDE PILOTS"?   Here's why: You might get remote
> > control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would
> > not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people.
> > Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance
> > dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that
> > flight.  Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four.
> > There would be too many chances of things going wrong.   Plane
> > substitution would be much simpler.  You'd just need the NORAD
> > insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent
> > or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things
> > go smooth.  That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent
> > lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.
> >
> > [ CV commens:
> > [ Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services
> > Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved
> > manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA
> > to operate these radars." Cited in "Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide'
> > Jets?" Part 2.  See Eberhart testimony at:

ww.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc

> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
> >
> > Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used
> > with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision
> > coordinates for the targets.  Maybe the job could have been done that
> > way, but it was not.  You know for sure it was not because flight
> > computers do not fly planes the way those were flown.  A flight
> > computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to
> > follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for
> > cross-winds and other errors.  The flight computer flies smooth and
> > gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.
> >
> > You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south
> > tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle
> > that almost missed the tower.  An autopilot wouldn't make that
> > mistake.  The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight
> > computer finding the optimum path.  What you see there in the path of
> > 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and
> > almost losing it.
> >
> > You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I
> > don't have to analyze that again.
> >
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html]
> >
> > I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened:
> > Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual
> > electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them
> > crash.  That's a pipe dream.  Anything that knocked out the
> > electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap
> > heap.  Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no
> > remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which
> > to leave intact.
> >
> > OTHER DETAILS
> >
> > *  Pentagon Security Photos:  On March 7 CNN released four
> > photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001.
> > Look at the photos:
> >
> >
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html
> >
> > The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry,
> > white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a
> > few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American
> > Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on
> > Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )
> >
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670_2002Mar7.html
> >
> > Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not
> visible.
> >
> > *   Fireman's Video of First Crash.  The NBC eyewitness said the
> > plane that few into the North tower was small.  This is corroborated
> > by the fireman's video taken on September 11:
> >
> >
http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf
> >
> > In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually
> > discussing some street work.  The fireman looks up over his left
> > shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound.
> > The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location,
> > then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another
> > corridor in the surrounding buildings.
> >
> > Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC?  I can only guess he heard
> > the impact of the plane.  The camera does not show the plane in the
> > air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.
> >
> > In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that
> > grows into a cloud and erupts into flame.  After a few seconds, the
> > flame dies down and the smoke dissipates.  At that moment, the camera
> > shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.
> >
> > If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S
> > shaped.  The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the
> > jet.  But more important:  if the impact of the jet made
> > the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the
> > camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the
> > smoke and flame.
> >
> > [
http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
> > [ http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]
> >
> > * The Hijackers:  I have read reports that some of the alleged
> > hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker
> > scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives
> > is pure bull.  But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still
> > alive, so let's move on.
> >
> > It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people
> > with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the
> > country.  Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared.  Then
> > mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never
> > aboard the planes.  That would work.
> >
> > As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on
> > the passenger lists of the four flights.  The hijackers names don't
> > even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September
> > 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.
> >
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]
> >
> > Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger
> > lists, but nobody's perfect.
> >
> > Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was,
> > think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93
> > to their next of kin in the moments before the crash.  Supposedly,
> > they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their
> > handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked
> > for a similar purpose.  So they decided to be heroes and take the
> > plane away from the hijackers.
> >
> > According to the Dallas Morning News: "The fourth time Thomas Burnett
> > Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're
> > going to die.  There's three of us who are going to do something
> > about it.'"
> >
> > [Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back,"
> > September 17, 2001.
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]
> >
> > Heroic, wasn't it?  And not a dry hanky in the house.  The heroes of
> > modern America.  A high school basketball star, a college rugby
> > player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ....
> >
> > But why did it have to be suicide heroism?  "They knew their deaths
> > were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they
> > spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with
> > them."  It makes a better story, of course.  "Suicide Heroes Defeat
> > Suicide Hijackers."
> >
> > Why did they have to die?  The crew was still alive and "herded at
> > knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being
> > held," according to the same report.  They weren't dead.  If the
> > passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the
> > plane?  Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a
> > chance we might save this boat"?  But they said, "I know we're going
> > to die."
> >
> > Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like
> > they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog".  And the
> > American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime
> > time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper
> > bag.  It spoils the show.
> >
> > Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the
> > passengers of Flight 93 had to die.  But the temptation was too much,
> > so they put it in the passenger dialog, too.  And that's how you know
> > the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.
> >
> > By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious
> > names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media
> > could interview fake relatives.  Like that Operation Northwoods plan
> > in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger
> > jet.  Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving
> > relatives, too.
> >
> > [
http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]
> >
> > And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice
> > simulation.  How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight
> > 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a
> > plaster fish trophy.  That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant
> > wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from
> > the answering service.
> >
> > ["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen
> > Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE) 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
> > [ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]
> >
> > Is this all too much for your to swallow?  Don't you believe people
> > would conspire to pull all this off?  Well, look at the stakes.  This
> > current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's
> > great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States,
> > redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power
> > structure of planet Earth.  All that's needed to make it happen is
> > ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to
> > be deceived.
> >
> > The problem with people like you when you try to understand events
> > like this, you are not a trained killer.  When you come to wiping out
> > the whoever, you shrink back.  That's normal.  That is one of the
> > things you have to train out of a soldier.
> >
> > But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at
> > the killing.  He just takes that into the plans like one more or one
> > less egg in the omelet.  If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or
> > even
> > himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to
> > win.  He's trained that way.
> >
> > The only thing that matters is the Objective.  Whatever a soldier has
> > to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do.  All of this
> > false piety about suicide bombers is nuts.  Well trained Americans
> > would do that if you ordered them to.  If they didn't, they weren't
> > well trained.
> >
> > So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand
> > civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the
> > Objective.
> >
> > ===
> > --
> > Carol A. Valentine
> > President, Public Action, Inc.
> >
http://www.Public-Action.com
> > See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI:
> > Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
> >
> > 911 Lies exposed at
http://www.public-action.com/
> >
> > *  Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets
> >      Parts 1 & 2, "Inside Job" and 'Dumb Blondes"
> > *  Operation 911:  NO SUICIDE PILOTS
> > *  The Taliban Home Video
> > *  Bin Laden: AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW
> > *  911 Terror:  Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics
> > * Operation Northwoods:  The Counterfeit
> > *  Osama bin Surplus
> > *  Osama bin CIA Agent
> > *  Press Uses Actors In War On Islam
> > *  Anti-war.com: Slyly Justifying War on Islam
> >
>
>
>