Re: [OPE] The Dog Days of August?

From: Paul Zarembka (
Date: Sun Aug 17 2008 - 12:04:48 EDT


You dropped the antecedent when you write "I said nothing of the sort". 
What are you objecting to?

> I have not read the text you mention. But, Paul, I said nothing of the
> sort. I do know that the officially released list of names of the
> hijackers was questioned by various news agencies at the time, including
> NYT, BBC and Daily Telegraph. Are you arguing the hijackers were not
> Islamic?

I do not know.  Do you?

In the chapter you have not read, we learn that ten of the alleged 
hijackers were reported alive AFTER 9/11 somewhere in the world.  The video 
of Atta at the airport is NOT Boston, but Portland.  The Dulles video has 
no dating at all and the shadowing of cars supposedly arriving at that 
airport does NOT match less than an hour after sunrise.  The initial FBI 
announced list included a person already dead BEFORE 9/11.  The list was 
changed for four persons without ever an explanation.  The pictures of the 
alleged pilot Jarrah for flight 93 have two or three different personages 
-- from OFFICIALLY released pictures.  Jarrah was born into a family of 
Islamic faith, but went to Catholic schooling and no one who knew him 
reports any fundamentalism about him, but rather of a fun-loving fellow. 
Verifiable manifests of those on board the planes have not been officially 
released to this day.  The lists provided by the airlines included no names 
of any alleged hijackers.  Where are the airport security videos for 
9-11-2001 for all three airports?

There is more in that chapter and in Kolar's update.

All you have to do is read the 9/11 Commission Report.  You can easily see 
that, as scholars, we cannot accept any of the identifications because 
there is not even an attempt at providing EVIDENCE.  It is as simple as 
that.  It is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE as a report; it PRESUMES its 
conclusion.  We would never let our students get away with it, let alone as 
a justification for war which involves death, injury and suffering.  It is 
an outrage.

> What I am saying is that 9/11 provided a rationale for a war which
> killed, injured or disabled an enormous number of innocent Muslims, which
> from the point of view of the terrorists, whatever their precise
> motivation, must surely have been counterproductive at the very least,
> unless you believe they all went to heaven.

Being 'counterproductive' would depend upon full identification of the 


THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, P. Zarembka, ed., Seven Stories Press, just out
 available at & -- "benchmark in 9/11 research"

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2008 - 00:00:07 EDT