[R-G] Some more *CRUCIAL* questions surrounding S11

[Lysander Zimmerman]

****Question #1:Who had the most to gain, you ask? [Read Below]****

from globe and mail (Toronto), front page, oct 11>
>
>
> U.S. media forget about dimpled chads
>
> John Ibbitson
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON -- Just weeks ago, it would have been the biggest story in the
> land: A final, comprehensive audit would reveal whether Al Gore or George
> W. Bush should be president. Today, it seems to be nobody's news.
>
> A consortium of major U.S. news organizations has decided unanimously not
> to analyze and report the results of the $1-million (U.S.) audit they
> commissioned to identify which presidential candidate received the most
> votes in Florida in last November's election.
>
> By "spiking" the story, they have raised questions about whether the
> country's biggest media conglomerates are suppressing news that
> potentially could tarnish the image of Mr. Bush in the midst of the
> President's war on terrorism.
>
> "I find it truly extraordinary that they have made this decision," said
> Jane Kirtley, media ethics specialist at the University of Minnesota. "I
> am so chilled by what is going on."
>
> The Supreme Court, in ordering an end to the recounting of votes in
> Florida last December, effectively handed the presidency to Mr. Bush. But
> there was evidence that, had accidentally mismarked ballots such as the
> famous "dimpled chads" been properly scrutinized, Mr. Gore might have won
> the state and the presidency.
>
> Last January, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street
> Journal, Associated Press, Newsweek, CNN and several other news
> organizations banded together and commissioned the University of Chicago's
> National Opinion Research Center to conduct a comprehensive examination of
> the ballots not officially counted in the Florida result.
>
> The centre was charged with examining each of about 180,000 uncounted
> ballots, reporting on which marks are on each ballot.
>
> The survey was completed around the end of August, Julie Antelman, a
> spokeswoman for the centre, said. Reporters and editors from each member
> of the consortium were then to review the survey and attempt to discern
> how each voter had intended to vote, and who, on that basis, won Florida.
>
> But shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
> Pentagon, the consortium unanimously agreed not to proceed with the
> analysis.
>
> To choose deliberately not to report major news is a remarkable decision
> for them to take. But they say the decision was taken because of a lack of
> resources and that the war on terrorism has made the story irrelevant.
>
> "Right now, we don't have the time, the personnel or the space in the
> newspaper to focus on this," Catherine Mathis, vice-president of corporate
> communications at the New York Times Co., said in an interview. "There's a
> much bigger story right now."
>
> Work on the Florida recount, she said, has been "postponed indefinitely."
>
> "Our belief is that the priorities of the country have changed, and our
> priorities have changed, and we need to marshal our person-power and our
> financial resources to cover the events of Sept. 11 and its aftermath,"
> said Steven Goldstein, vice-president of corporate communications for Dow
> Jones & Co., which publishes The Wall Street Journal. "When times have
> settled down, I'm sure all of this will come out. But not in the next few
> weeks."
>
> There have been previous efforts to examine rejected Florida ballots in an
> attempt to divine the intent of the voters who cast them, including a
> survey by The Miami Herald that suggested Mr. Bush indeed won the state.
>
> But the study commissioned by the news consortium was by far the most
> detailed and objective. Because antiquated voting machines were used in
> Florida and the punch-card ballots were complicated, many votes were
> marked as spoiled when a machine failed to punch cleanly the ballot's chad
> -- the bit of paper to be punched out.
>
> To help divine voter intent, each of 180,000 uncounted ballots was
> examined by a three-person panel, and its marking described. Was the chad
> "dimpled," (bulging, but intact)? Hanging by one or three corners? Could
> light be seen through the intended hole?
>
> The results were tabulated in a set of tables. "The National Opinion
> Research Center has completed its part of the task," Ms. Antelman said.
> "What remains is for the media group to request the data set."
>
> Neither the centre nor the consortium knows whether the data suggest that,
> had the uncounted votes been tallied, Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush would have won
> the state. Mr. Goldstein rejected the suggestion that the media might be
> avoiding the story for fear of embarrassing the President in a time of
> national crisis.
>
> "It has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever," he said. "The
> priorities have changed. People are focused on the fact that we're at
> war."
>
> But "to say it is not a story any more is an utterly ingenuous thing to
> say," Prof. Kirtley said. "Of course it's still a story, whatever are the
> results of that audit.
>
> "They should just do it."

*****Rest of today's questions: [Read Below]******

Critical Questions
[This arrived as an email, supposedly from DP, an Americanmilitary person.
Judge for yourself:]

Why Were So Few People on the Flights?

1) Flight 11 was a Boeing 757/200. This plane holds 239 passengers. There
were 81 passengers and 11 crew. The 11 crew members included 2 pilots and 9
flight attendants. Is it normal that this flight would not be at capacity,
based on other Flight 11's that leave Boston to LA, at the same time every
day. Flights within the Airline industry operate on standardized schedule.
They don't make the schedules after the passengers book the flights. The
only days that they schedule deviate are Saturdays and Sundays and holidays.
So, is it customary that this flight is so underbooked? (About 30% capacity)
I flew out west from Florida about three months ago, and every flight I got
on was either full or overbooked.

2) Same question of all the flights. #175 had 54 passengers. The pentagon
plane (#77) had 56 passengers, and the PA flight 38. All less than 25% of
capacity. Why? I don't have access to the files of AA or United, but some
reporter should be able to find out this information. [Fewer people, easier
to control the situation. And the less likely that something could go wrong,
maybe? I'm just speculating, of course. I don't know, and I don't have
access to AA or United archives and files.] The Air Force Could Have Averted
the Tragedy But Didn't

3) Four planes at once with no transponder info on the FAA screens and Air
Force screens. All of them just showing up as blips on radar. One plane is
in a "NO FLY ZONE";.. within constantly monitored, restricted airspace. A
pilot has already remarked that when a plane deviates just a little, that
the FAA oversight will call and/or allow for course corrections. But, we are
talking about planes that were miles off course. In these instances, the FAA
reports it to the Air Force. But also, in these instances, the Air Force has
already  locked onto these planes, because they monitor the commercial
system as well as their own. That's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every day
of the year. They have to, so that we don't have military and commercial
aircraft flying into one another, constantly. In a circumstance like Flight
11, this plane is so far of course it is ridiculous and they are not
responding normally to communications.  They did a hard bank (90 degrees to
the south) somewhere north of Albany, NY. The Air Force is to scramble at
least a recon aircraft to monitor. Why no recon, on any of the first three
flights? Let's look at the second plane. It was 18 minutes until it hit the
second building. This plane flew over NYC, past the city and went to
somewhere
around Newark, NJ. At that point it did a 360 degree bank to fly back to
NYC. By this time "they" know that this is no accident happening. They know
that they have hijacked planes in the air. An F-15 strike eagle flies at
1850+ nmph. That is Mach 2.5+ A sidewinder with heat seeking infrared
guidance, has a range of 18 miles. This aircraft, according to the USAF's
own website, goes from "scramble order" to 29000 feet in 2.5 minutes. New
York City is 71 miles from McGuire AFB in NJ and 147 from Westover AFB in
MA. At Mach 2, this plane could travel from the ground in NJ to NYC, in
under 7 minutes. I am being generous. Mach 2 is 20+ miles per minute and
Mach 2.5 is 30+ miles per minute. This is 150 to 210 seconds to cover the 71
miles. If we factor in the time for the scramble order, to being in the air;
we are at 5 to 6 minutes for an F-15 to bypass flight 175, turn, and sit at
the WTC to wait for the plane (175) to arrive. This is far less than 18
minutes, and this plane (175) had to fly back over the Hudson Bay to reach
its target. (Remember the range of the sidewinder is over 10 miles. Is it
even necessary to mention the speed of this missile?) The Plane Hitting the
Pentagon Could Have Been Stopped But Wasn't---Why?

4) Let's apply these same standards to the Pentagon plane #77. This plane is
over restricted airspace. It is 40 minutes after the second attack in NYC.
At some point, here, Barbara Olsen calls her husband to let him know the
plane is hijacked. Mr. Olsen calls "officials" who claim that they don't
know about Flight #77 being hijacked. Barbara Olsen makes a second phone
call to her husband. Other passengers were FORCED TO CALL their families to
tell them that they were going to die. Why would the hijackers put out this
warning? The article definitely says "forced to call". See: Flight 77: 'Our
Plane Is Being Hijacked' (www.washingtonpost.com) See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/metro/dc/schools/A14365-2001Sep11.html
This plane flies over the White House, which has automatic turret style
anti-defense weaponry on top of the building. NO shots are reported to be
fired, no anti-aircraft missiles were fired. This plane, still in restricted
airspace, does a 270 degree bank to turn around and fly toward the Pentagon.
Andrews AFB is 13 miles away. This is already within the range of a
sidewinder. All that is required is to put the plane in the air (maybe up to
3000 ft.), lock and fire. Remember it is 40 minutes and they already
know that these planes are being used as weapons. They have been reporting
it on ABC, CBS, and NBC for 30+ minutes. They have received phone calls from
passengers, telling them that the plane is hijacked. (By the way, what time
were these cell-calls made? Before or after they entered the "no fly zne"?)

These planes could have been knocked out of the sky EASILY, but weren't.
Why?

DP

P.S. It's not that I want to believe that something stinks, here. It's just
that I would like credible answers as to what was/is going on. I was in the
military. As a Navy Nuclear Reactor Operator, we had to stand duty 24/7, to
monitor operations. An Air Force base is constantly manned, in case of an
unforeseen event or  attack. They fly recon missions, every single day. Some
of these recon flights may be armed, and some may not. But, there are a
certain number of planes are armed at all times and the pilots do 24-hour
rotating shifts so that the Air Force can respond quickly. The Air Force and
Nuclear Aircraft Carriers constitute America's first line of defensive
readiness. They were 13 miles from the Pentagon, with planes that can fly
circles around a commercial jet. Were they on vacation or what?


DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la
LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE
C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St.,
Vancouver,
B.C. V6B1H7
Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604)
688-0550;cellular(604)
202 7334;
E-MAIL cfogal at netcom.ca; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca