- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Bias does cut both ways. And we see lots of it here.
I agree that pictures are far from the only evidence. Like you, I kept expecting to hear that there were interceptors in the air. But they never came, not even after an hour!
But there were not, just a few - who never arrived on time, not surprising since they never flew at top speed, or were vectored off in the wrong direction. One of the biggest flaws in the official story is the lack of fighter cover that day. Andrews AFB is only 13 miles from the Pentagon. On Sept. 11, they had 150 interceptors there. The first plane was identified as hijacked at around 8:25 AM EST, the last plane did not strike the Pentagon until 9:38. Simple question. Where were the interceptors? Hell where were the helicopters? They could have hit the thing with a SAM too from Andrews, or even the ones that must have been at the Pentagon. But they did not. It all fell down that day, everything. Just a coincidence they say, mere incompetence, yeah right.
As for Farhad he is notorious for his sloppy "journalism" and is not to be taken seriously, just the other day he posted that the errant spy satellite had been shot down by a "cruise missile". Must have been a really low altitude spy sat, like 60 feet off the ground.
But back to psychology. One of the biggest problems is convincing people that someone that they think they "know" like Bush or even Cheney is capable of such acts. Hell they just killed 1.2 million Iraqis, basically for oil, Israel and empire. What's a few thousand people to an extreme sociopath? Nothing, as you know.
Then there is cognitive dissonance, the source of a million "Yeah buts".
I am glad you weighed in, they will have some trouble branding you "crazy" or "stupid", but if I was you I would keep your MMPI test results handy just in case.
