Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity

[Peter Presland]

While I'm on the subject, this post on Washington's Blog is apposite too. It postulates a civil damages case where proof of negligence on the part of one of the airline security companies accused of allowing hijackers on board, turns on forensic proof that they were indeed the planes involved:

In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.
And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The rest of the post goes on to demonstrate that no such forensic evidence has been made available and that attempts to have it (if it exists) released have been uniformly stone-walled.

One of the most compelling issues is summed up thus:

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB’s air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency’s painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question’s purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.
However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

So Why? why is there such prickly official sensitivity - not to say bloody-minded obstinate refusal to engage at all - with these issues?

I personally do not care a toss who thinks I'm nutty for asking these sorts of questions. Everyone accused a certain innocent young lad of outrageous behaviour when he exclaimed that the Emperor was naked. In similar fashion, I intend to go where the evidence takes me and that evidence includes the very strange behaviour of officialdom when asked the most obvious of questions about these scheduled flights.

I'm certainly not riding some sort of hobby-horse on this. Neither do I claim to have studied these things exhaustively; but as far as I am concerned NO avenue of serious inquiry should be declared verboden - because the moment it IS so declared, that's the moment I for one am likely to start focussing hard on it.