pacifism

[John Lundy]

Chris,

What has got me baffled is where did the story I read come from?  The item 
I referred to was one paragraph buried in a story on the front page of the 
Sydney Morning Herald.  For true paranoics, get this, it only appeared in 
one edition.  (I'm an old newspaper man so know something of these things.) 
 It wasn't in the early edition (I know this because I spent the day in a 
country town where they only get the early edition) and it wasn't in the 
later editions (because friends of mine disputed what I was telling them 
the newspaper said, saying not just that it was implausible that this could 
happen but it just wasn't in the fucking paper where I said it was).  But 
it was there all right, in black and white.  Thank god I kept it long 
enough to show some of the sceptics.

So why would someone in the Administration make a statement tantamount to 
an admission that the plane was shot down if it hadn't at the very least 
engaged a fighter plane?

I don't know for sure, either, and I certainly don't want to be pissing on 
the graves of the brave passengers who gave up their lives if that truly 
was the case but like you Chris, I'm completely perplexed at the almost 
total lack of scrutiny of this isue.

Proverbs for paranoids...

On Wednesday, 26 September 2001 14:48, senslo [SMTP:senslo at yahoo.com.au] 
wrote:
> Hi John
>
> I'm glad you brought that up. I watched and waited for
> that fourth plane to hit the White House on that night
> (in Australia) September 11, and when I heard it had
> crashed in a field somewhere I thought, Jesus, they've
> bought it down. It still seems plausible (?even
> probable): we would have been asking how the hell they
> could have let a fourth plane hit (had it), when they
> had so much time to bring it down, wouldn't we? I've
> scanned the newspages for anything more on it, and
> have been interested in the lack of even mere
> speculation on the possibility. Is the hero story
> based on those few cellphone calls? It's an appealing
> story, the only one of American resistance to the
> attack, but does it rest on a solid factual footing?
> They found the black box days ago didn't they? How
> long does it take to listen to the thing?
>
> I know had they brought the plane down, not only would
> it have been justified (to me, anyway), but also
> would've been a difficult thing to admit to an
> hysterical public. Not good for national unity, and in
> channelling public anger solely toward *them*.
>
> I really don't know whether it was brought down or
> not. But I am interested in the lack of speculation,
> especially given the journalists and myriad 'experts'
> talk so endlessly about every other facet of the
> attack.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
> From: John Lundy <jlundy at gyk.com.au>
>
> >Something that has intrigued me:  there were initial
> reports that the Pennsylvania plane may have been shot
> down by a US fighter plane.  In a newspaper here a
> member of the Administration admitted on about the
> third day after the event that they had been too hasty
> in categorically ruling this out and "now admit that
> it was possible that the plane was engaged by a US
> fighter plane".  I've read absolutely nothing about
> this since. Do any of you guys have any further
> information?
>
> John
>
>
>
> http://travel.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Travel
> - Got Itchy feet? Get inspired!