military man wants bush to come clean about 9/11

the pressure on bush over his role in the september 11th attacks is mounting as the list of prominent ppl speaking out begins to grow.
see http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#dayton. robert bowman a former head of advanced space programmes for the department of defence posted the following on his web site urging the bush administration to come clean about the mystery and unanswered questions which is an article summarising many ppl's questions and suspicions about the official version of events:

What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy?

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman

There are conspiracy theories flying around the internet like seagulls around a landfill. Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Others go further. They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack (usually along with the Mossad). These folks don’t think there were ever any Arab hijackers at all.

What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing. If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people.

Clearing themselves of actively planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ought to be fairly easy. All they have to do is give the American people the answers to a few key questions:

(1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines?

(2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers.

(3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon? Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon? Why were no wings or engines found? Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane? Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean.

There are lots more questions, but you get the idea. Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away.

Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers. Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions. A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few. If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly. Here are just a few:

(4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long? The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused. Why?

(5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11? If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped?

(6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11? The hijackers obviously had no use for the money. Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11? Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades. These trades were 25 times as great as usual. If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights? Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings?

(7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon? Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted. Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately. The transponders on the airliners were turned off. The hijackers were heard on the radio. And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses. Was NORAD told? If not, why not? What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom? Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations? Why has the public never been told what was on them? Why weren’t the congressional investigators told? The independent commission? Who is hiding what, and why? If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded? If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason?

(8) What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack? Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target? If they knew that, how?

There are many more unanswered questions. If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions???


http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm

 

This seems like a unbiased search for the truth.. i think the fact that he seems like he has investigated these points he raises with feverish zeal, is something we should applaud.

I imagine if he got the desired answers he wanted from 'those in the know' he would be satisfied .. and let this matter rest.

I doubt he is doing this for any political reasons at all...just for 'the truth'.





Good luck Dr Bowman

 

only retards and blind people = 911 WAS PLAN UNDER LIBERAL CLINTON BELT and executed under freshly voted in =Bush.

 

i'm not sure i want to get into a debate about other matters but some of what u claim as fact is still hotly contested. for example what are the links between saddam and al queda you say are there? cheney repeatedly telling ppl they exist doesn't make it real. ideologically and for practical political purposes there was very little the baath party and al queda had in common and a lot of differences to boot, one is secular and the other's not. in any event, al queda have never been shown to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. where is the evidence of this? as regards obl it's been mentioned be4 in other threads that many believe obl was shielded from arrest by his (not so) hidden protectors in the us government, not least of all the bush family itself, irrespective of whether an arrest warrant was issued or not.

nothing about this whole business can be said to be beyond dispute. that's why an independent judicial enquiry is needed and why bush et al must answer the questions that have been put here. in the meantime it must serve someone's interests to have all the necessary information kept secret.

 

can u rephrase that pls bro?

 

Very simple James 911 was plan while president clinton was in office . dont forget our enemy was allready getting out of hands while our liberal Clinton did nothing . Matter of fact Clinton and janet reno were more concern about the devidians in Waco texas and how they can figure out to pass strict gun control laws that would ultimate make us weaker as a nation than going after the trouble maker muslims and the muslims knew this.

 

i must go now im starting to built a pc. Later Gators.

 

At the first glance i thought ok another earnest soul, looking for some truths. Then i read it again, found out who he was and i am afraid i became a bit sarcastic.

The things he asks are almost bog standard in these types of cases [person asking Bush these questions].. and like you say many can be refuted..
He has a bias [quite evident] and a long lasting dispute with this 'War', Mr Bush and the Presidency [him wanting to become president]..
After i read the below.. i realised the guy was not being that erm well considered , and it takes no time at all to realise 3/4s of his 'questions' have been 'answered' already.

 

Can you rephrase the rephrasing?

Xx

 

Just jokin, im jus a bit slow, is all

I think its more likely a biased statement disguised as un unbiased search. This was written by a very clever man.

Xx

 

Maybe the title should have been "Military Man repeats conspiracies theories he heard elsewhere on a website run by crackpots".

Really, the esteemed board of wanttoknow.info includes people who hold conferences on extra-terrestrials and CIA mind control, and one guy who wrote a book which claims that "Stunning evidence compiled herein proves DNA is nature's bioaccoustic and electromagnetic (that is, “spiritual”) energy receiver, signal transformer, and quantum sound and light transmitter."

Is it really exciting that the 9/11 conspiracy theory has spread to people like this? Is this what you mean by a "growing movement"?

 

I have to agree with you.. apart from being smart.. just opportunistic.

 

presumably you mean the guy who raises the questions. why should it matter whether he's a martian if his questions are relevant and intelligent? can u answer them? no you can't. so i don't see why it should mean you're mad to ask them and demand answers. what's crazy about that? sounds like responsible citizenship to me.

 

But these people are not looking for answers. I provided you with an exhaustive list of engineering studies published by leading engineering schools and professional journals about the WTC towers collapsing and you flippantly dismissed all of them. These people are no different. No evidence exists, or could even be imagined, which could not be instantly rejected by conspiracy theorists. Its what they do. Don't be so naive.

And yes, it does matter if the people promoting these theories are clinically insane.

 

i would be in trouble if i had no way to discriminate between one conspiracy theory and another, but i do try to sort out the sheep from the goats and keep my bullshit detector on at all times. what i say here may seem naive to you but it seems eminently sensible to me b/c i've spent a good deal of time thinking about it so i understand the logic behind my own position. the point about your links, and about university studies into this matter in general, is that they contain highly technical theories which don't conform to the best standards of scholarship: in any study i've read all possibilties are open to discussion except controlled demolition. a serious examination needs to look at every alternative, not just the favoured ones or the politically determined ones, and controlled demolition must rank amongst the top three likely possibilities. no study i have seen from any university thus far (and i didn't read all of those links: i don't have enough time to spend looking into this in fine technical detail) has posited a serious technical rebuttal of the controlled explosion thesis. i may stand corrected if u can show me one. but we don't see that being analysed because it's ideologically disqualified. the main theories i have seen are rather improbable (fema so described its hypothesis of the demise of building 7: 'likely improbable') and to be adequately tested much money would need to be spent, money which the us government or us media have not provided nor look like providing. one theory that doesn't need megabucks spent on it to see if it's falsifiable is the controlled demolition theory. implosions of this sort are happening all the time and it isn't too hard to compare and contrast. that's why i favour that theory: the wtc collapse mimicks the behaviour of a controlled demolition in so many ways.

what so you're a psychiatrist are you?

 

james don't worry about your detractors. just say what you've got to say without fear - i'm sure that other people will be reading your stuff and thinking.

 

I read his post.. Others who do not agree read his posts also.. and respond at lengh... I try and think [if i have not heard it before]..

guy if james did, then maybe he would not come up with 'controled demolitions' as a cause.. Shucks i don't have time to look into something that crushes something i don't wish to think is true.. I am being dismisive i apologise, but james has changed imho.

 

Oh but Matthew, don't forget....

...right! So studies by low credibility groups (e.g. MIT and the American Society of Civil Engineers) contain "highly technical studies" (shame!) and unlike Rense or infowars, don't conform to the best standards... yeah sure that's a real sceptic talking.

 

that isn't quite what i mean. i don't know the guy rense you refer to so i can't comment on his work. if u reread what i said above carefully you will see i'm asking you to nominate from amongst the links you provided a specific article or dissertation that directly addresses and refutes the demolition theory. that's all. until such an article can be produced then all theories, official or otherwise, must be put on the table: not just the ones that are 'safe' and will cast no aspersions on the us government, itself a great reason for most english speaking universities not to endorse the demolition theory. of course i didn't read all your links. why should i? i didn't post them here as being meaningful. you did. so it's up to you to point us to the right source. if you can't then it will be safe to assume that no such report exists.