Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Se fosse stato il tenente Colombo ad investigare sul 911...

Ve la ricordate la serie televisiva del Tenente Colombo?
Se un tipo come lui avesse avuto l'incarico di investigare tale massacro, 
come avrebbe agito:
Detective Columbo Asks:
by Douglas Herman
Heresies begin as unwelcome thoughts. Truths are seldom
self-evident, especially in an environment of official lies and
fabrications. What we now know of our past should make us
especially wary of those who control our future, suspicious of
whatever they declare to be truth. As the Gulf of Tonkin proved,
when a government has conceived an agenda, lies become the
official truth until disproved by history and the confessions of
old men. By then it is too late.
What do we know about 911? A massacre, yes. A spectacular attack,
undoubtedly. But are we somehow treasonous if we examine the
evidence objectively, as detective Columbo would do? In Detective
Columbo As Theologian, Robert Zerhusen says: "Columbo begins by
making observations and asking questions. His questions are
innocuous at first. The questions then become irritating as he
brings out problems with the initial explanation. For the person
who has committed the crime, Columbo becomes a nuisance."
Would Columbo accept the official 911 story that a strange,
bearded man had perpetrated a terrible crime simply because a
powerful organization had told him so? Wouldn't we-along with
every good detective--immediately assume someone in that
organization had something to hide?
Crimes are committed for many reasons. Columbo always sought a
motive, taking nothing for granted. Neither was anyone--no matter
how powerful--exempt from suspicion in Columbo's mind. Although
they would dismiss him as an "annoying little man," the chief
mistake the rich and powerful perpetrator always seemed to make
was to take detective Columbo too lightly. Just as Four 9/11 Moms
Battle Bush-another group of citizens also taken lightly, if at
all--we can almost picture the dogged determination of these four
average women, trying to discover just what happened on 911,
exactly as that truthseeker, Columbo would have done. You see,
governments would prefer we all just go away and not ask any
questions. Ever.
But before we examine motives, let us summarize the official
story, as reported by our national news organs with information
helpfully provided to them by the government. Early on the
morning of September 11, 2001, four passenger jets are hijacked
and their courses altered. Immediately the Federal Aviation
Association (FAA) is required to notify NORAD of any unusual
events, of which there were now four. NORAD must scramble jets,
as they've practiced repeatedly, for just such an emergency. But,
strangely, NORAD does not respond, except belatedly if at all.
Maybe NORAD generals didn't want to personally order any planes
carrying innocent passengers shot down. Would you give that
order? Maybe our fighter planes were all called back, as they
were in the attack on the USS LIBERTY ,a scenario I prefer to
believe. Like the USS Liberty and the Tonkin Gulf incident, the
truth might be part conspiracy, part negligence and a subsequent
cover up.
At the the World Trade Center--the fabled "Twin Towers"--leased
only a few months earlier by a wealthy developer, first one jet
and then another slams into the upper floors. An inferno, fueled
by thousands of gallons of fuel, rages for minutes but then the
fire begins to smolder. 350 firefighters fight their way up the
steps. Radio contact from these professionals report confident
dialogue they can extinguish the fire. Suddenly, first one and
then the other of the towers pancakes downwards, killing everyone
still in them, including the 350 firefighters. Meanwhile Flight
93 in Pennsylvania wanders aimlessly before heading south.
Witnesses in the vicinity report a military jet tailing the
plane. Wreckage from flight 93, scattered over eight miles from
the crash site, seems to indicate the plane has been shot from
the skies. NORAD denies this.
The third hijacked plane reportedly slams into the Pentagon.
However, no wreckage of a passenger jet--no wings, wheels, tail
fin, luggage, seats, bodies-were ever found at the Pentagon. Can
you imagine Columbo scratching his head at this development? One
French critic who used official photos and satellite images taken
minutes after the impact-some reportedly by the US military-to
question the official version was labeled a "Crackpot" and his
claims dismissed as an "urban legend." The only problem with such
urban legends is they flourish in the dark, a quality the state
loves like a fetish.
Meanwhile, the curious collapse of the two enormous WTC
skyscrapers left everyone shocked, stunned-and angry. Most
Americans have watching the massacre on television for hours.
When another building falls they are told everyone escaped
safely. Although, by appearances, superficially damaged and
burning in only two small places, WTC7.pancakes in exactly the
same manner as the two towering buildings before it. Moments
after this horrific attack, a Passport is Found On Street Below
WTC! The identification is still readable although it survived a
fiery impact that vaporized all else. Evidently a Muslim man
committed this horrific crime.
What would Colombo do with such evidence? Wouldn't he at least
look at WTC: films? Talking to firemen would also seem like a
good first step, since 350 of them died tragically. But how
exactly would a good detective like Columbo begin to approach
this most sinister of crimes and the perplexing contradiction of
available evidence? First the motives. Who profits? Who Made The
AA 'Put' Options and was it true that enormous fortunes were made
by insider trading on Wall Street? Yes. Did The CIA, have any
connection to the attack? Yes, obliquely, or perhaps even
directly by a few individuals. Is it true an enormous WTC
Insurance payout is being contested. Yes A $7 billion prize that
not even King Croesus of Lydia could have imagined.
Was it true that hundreds of tons of paper debris blanketed the
streets of lower Manhattan simultaneous to the discovery of that
incriminating passport? Yes. Besides cinders and bones and bodies
from Twin Towers Jumpers, that amazing document emerged like
Oswald's rifle. If Las Vegas were to calculate the odds of
finding such a charred passport, that originated in a fiery crash
and was buried in an avalanched of debris from seventy stories
up, what would be the odds? Miraculous indeed how a paper
passport could survive a fiery explosion but an ENTIRE airliner
vaporized on impact at the Pentagon. Would Colombo--or a court of
law--accept this passport as admissible evidence in a criminal
case if someone from the prosecution handed it to him, or would
the passport be dismissed as highly circumstantial-and rightly
so-suspected of having been planted?
Why were certain US military men neither reprimanded nor demoted
for failure to perform their duty? Some even failed to remember
simple details! Myers Senate Confirmation Hearing, 9/13/01]
Remember, the admirals in command at Pearl Harbor were
court-martialed, not treated with kid gloves as if they were
fellow victims--as were NORAD officials after 911. Columbo might
start by shining the harsh light on key players. During General
Richard Myers' tenure at NORAD-more than one year before the
attack --the Pentagon brass practiced attack scenarios, even
featuring Bin Laden's picture on the cover of one manual. In
October of 2000, a detailed "emergency" drill was practiced,
simulating a Pentagon attack. So why wasn't anyone prepared at
the Pentagon even ONE HOUR after jets struck the WTC? In one of
the best articles ever written about attack-The Failure to Defend
the Skies on 9/11 and the basis for hundreds of conspiracy claims
that "Insiders" were somehow involved-Paul Thompson uncovered a
pattern of criminal negligence. Describing such discrepancies, a
lawyer once said to me: "One mishap is chance; two is a pattern;
three are a conspiracy" If your child drowns because you left the
pool gate ajar even once, you can go to jail for involuntary
manslaughter. If NORAD isn't guilty of criminal complicity, no
one is.
Columbo might also corner the leaseholder Larry Silverstein. If
the US government won't investigate, won't ask the tough
questions, perhaps outraged New Yorkers will. Did Silverstein
order the destruction of WTC-7? Detective Columbo might
investigate the startling collapse of a structurally sound
building and talk to architects and engineers and especially
corporate lawyers. Their words might give him some important
clues as to who profited. If building 7, World Trade Center was
indeed an official government building--the SEC leased 100,000
suare feet--can a "landlord" order its destruction and, if so, why
As I said, Colombo always began his investigation by seeking a
motive. One group of suspects not yet mentioned had the most to
gain. Presently they all hold high office. The signers of the
PNAC, who clearly spoke of the impetus for another "Pearl Harbor"
style attack on America--which all the national news
organizations said this was--to provide impetus for an aggressive
agenda, an excuse for a series of military incursions into the
oil-rich Middle East. How much more than a terrorist attack, does
911 appear to be that signature event? Columbo certainly wouldn't
shirk that question. Lastly, If certain wealthy investors had
profited immediately by foreknowledge of the sinking of the
battleship USS Arizona in 1941, Americans would have been
outraged. Obviously no one is outraged today. Likewise, there
were eight official inquiries into the attack on Hawaii. There is
scarcely one inquiry today on 911.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed
with this notice and hyperlink intact."
K 

by Douglas Herman
Una puttanata che il caro Kiwi ha trovato pubblicata sui vari siti
complottisti :)
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/herm030904.shtml
-Stefano

 order?
E gia qua la prima falla: l'FAA deve si riferire di voli sospetti al
NORAD, ma definire un volo come "sospetto" non è una cosa che si fa in 4 e
4 otto. Inoltre, non è affatto vero che mandare in scramble gli
intercettori è una pratica comune in caso di dirottamento, specialmente in
defcon 3-5, perchè semplicemente non ci sono aerei in allerta permanente.
Ancora, prima di definire un aereo come "dirottato", bisogna prima
procedere a vari controlli. Innanzitutto, bisogna sincerarsi che
un'eventuale interruzione delle comunicazioni non sia in realtà un guasto.
Poi ci sono procedure per la coordinazione di aereo-torre di controllo
senza diretto contatto radio. Nel caso invece i dirottatori comunichino
con la torre di controllo dicendo che l'aereo è stato dirottato, scattano
le procedure di emergenza, che comunque non prevedono automaticamente
l'intercettazione.
Riguardo l'intercettazione di voli civili, c'è da dire alcune cose. Tutti
i radar civili si basano sui transponder per determinare la posizione di
uno specifico aereo. Questo perchè i voli civili sono migliaia, e
tracciarli tutti semplicemente con il radar sarebbe impossibile. Nel caso
del 911, secondo le ricostruzioni, i voli hanno ad un certo punto iniziato
a cambiare il codice del transponder, diverse volte, per poi spegnarlo del
tutto. Il grosso problema è che, quando gli aerei sono decollati (2 erano
decollati pochi minuti prima dello schianto sul pentagono, allertati una
ventina di minuti prima, e altri sono decollati in seguito. Non siamo più
nella guerra fredda, lo scramble in 5 minuti non esiste più...)
Ancora, una volta in volo i caccia non sapevano 1: cosa cercare 2: dove
cercarlo. I piloti hanno testimoniato che si sono ritrovati in volo
convinti di dover fronteggiare un attacco convenzionale, e di esserci
rimasti di sasso quando gli hanno comunicato che dovevano intercettare dei
voi civili. Inoltre, con i radar militari non è possibile riconoscere un
volo dirottato da uno civile, e quindi non era possibile sapere DOVE
mandare i caccia.
Quanto ai generali, semplicemente NON HANNO L'AUTORITA' per autorizzare
l'abbattimento di un volo civile. Infatti l'autorizzazione è arrivata ai
piloti direttamente dal vicepresidente. In seguito due F16 sono stati
inviati a scortare l'AF1 (che di norma, sul territorio nazionale, non ha
scorta).
Negli USA, in defcon 3-5, i caccia militari sono in volo di
intercettazione solo lungo lo spazio aereo internazionale, per
intercettare eventualmente i voli internazionali verso gli USA.
Saluti
Raffaele
-- 
Raffaele Castagno
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

voi civili.
Cosa di cui hai le prove, ma da bravo fesso non vuoi mostrare al
mondo.
Peppi Niello ALIAS Giuseppe Calvo.