Former USAF Colonel Speaks Out: 911 and the Precautionary Principle

[bigfish]

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

 

[fela fan]

From that link:

"On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."

Indeed. Perhaps this particular 911 thread can be different from the others by asking posters to put up any links and/or evidence supporting their claims that the USG version of events is as they say it is.

For what reasons should those suspicious of US involvement in the attacks find it easier to believe the USG version of events?

"As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."

Since this is a man who can claim to have expert knowledge, and who swore his allegiance to the constitution, i'd think he's worth listening to. He quite rightly is calling upon the USG to provide evidence to back up their version of events.

If the USG has nothing to hide, then it should find it very easy to provide the answers that so many are looking for.

So why is the only evidence a how-to-fly manual and an allah prayer book in one hire car, and one hijacker's passport that they found on the streets?

Perhaps this thread can come up with other supporting evidence that will allow us to believe what the USG say about 911.

 

[Jazzz]

more from this guy...

During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned the Power Hour listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, “I didn’t see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole.” He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, “There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn’t all go through that hole…It is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft,… it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read.”

http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press12.htm

Pretty unequivocal stuff. Does anyone still not have severe doubts about the official story?

 

[dylanredefined]

what happened to the planes and the passengers then? I think lot of people actually saw the incidents happen ? why am i replying to this conspricy nutter thread .these and other questions will never be answered

 

[neilh]

what happened to the planes and the passengers then? I think lot of people actually saw the incidents happen ? why am i replying to this conspricy nutter thread .these and other questions will never be answered

well what happened to the plane and the passengers is something we can't really know if we don't know what happened. what this article seems to be saying is that if what happened to the planes and passengers is what the US government says happened, then that should be easy enough to prove with solid evidence without even a need to discredit alternative theories.

 

[neilh]

from the link:

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

this does make us think, though, surely if it was a black operation by USG, then it would be easy enough for them to plant that evidence, which hasn't been done to my knowledge.

 

[bigfish]

from the link:

this does make us think, though, surely if it was a black operation by USG, then it would be easy enough for them to plant that evidence, which hasn't been done to my knowledge.

Yes, but if this was really the work of an extreme fascistic cabal, loose within the highest echelons of the corporate-political-military-intelligence nexus, then this might not be so easily achieved on the ground, for any number of practical considerations. Under these circumstances deceit would be better served by sewing as much (top down) confusion as possible, while all the time vigorously pointing the finger of suspicion at the preselected patsies through the in-house media - sweeping everything up under the blanket of "national security" post haste and then "fixing" any problems from above.

 

[neilh]

Yes, but if this was really the work of an extreme fascistic cabal, loose within the highest echelons of the corporate-political-military-intelligence nexus, then this might not be so easily achieved on the ground, for any number of practical considerations.

i'm not entirely convinced that this would be impractical if the whole thing was being orchestrated anyway (especially if the theory of the building being rigged with explosives beforehand is considered - if they were doing that anyway, surely it wouldn't be too hard to also sneak some fake plane parts in which would then be found).

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Sorry, bit rushed right now, can someone tell me whether there's any new information in that link that's not been presented here before?

 

[neilh]

Sorry, bit rushed right now, can someone tell me whether there's any new information in that link that's not been presented here before?

it doesn't seem like it was ever meant to be a thread with new facts about what happened in the link, just another perspective, which does seems to have prompted new discussions. there's plenty of discussions that come up on these boards which, while not presenting any new facts about anything, still result in new discussions.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

I havent followed previous 911 threads meticulously due to being absent from urban for a time but this, to me, seems to be particularly significant

If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

 

[Pickman's model]

On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.

wtf is "potential evidence"?

 

[neilh]

wtf is "potential evidence"?

i'd suppose potential evidence would be any remains of the two planes, and rubble from the buildings. i have heard it said by some that it was all removed quickly(the rubble) and disposed of so it couldn't be examined, but at the same time i'm sure i saw a link recently showing parts of the planes on public view somewhere.

 

[bigfish]

i'm not entirely convinced that this would be impractical if the whole thing was being orchestrated anyway (especially if the theory of the building being rigged with explosives beforehand is considered - if they were doing that anyway, surely it wouldn't be too hard to also sneak some fake plane parts in which would then be found).

Yes, interesting, I agree, it wouldn't be too hard. But then the question arises: why didn't they plant it, find it, photograph it and then show it as evidence in a proper court of inquiry?

The thing is, with planted evidence - and there would need to be a lot of it in these instances - the perpetrators would have to get the detail pretty much spot on. Any lapse or failure could prove very incriminating in itself and would likely point automatically to an inside job. But what we see with 911 is that neither of the two main crime sites were actually subject to what would normally be considered a thorough and extensive forensic examination. At the Pentagon site for example there are photographs of men in suits, taken not long after the event, running around gathering up debris off the lawn and removing it from view. Obviously, forensics was not a principal concern of the Federal authorities here.

 

[bigfish]

wtf is "potential evidence"?

Well, obviously, it means evidence that is capable of resolving matters one way or the other if it had been examined in situ by forensic experts. Surely you could have figured that out for yourself couldn't you?

Can I ask, apart from that single phrase in the colonels analysis that seems to have confused you so much, what is your opinion of the rest of it?

 

[fela fan]

Sorry, bit rushed right now, can someone tell me whether there's any new information in that link that's not been presented here before?

Well, for when you have time: the link is specifically calling for evidence from the USG. You know, to provide backing for their own version of what happened that day. They've only ever told us, never put anything by the way of evidence in our path.

As for urban, and our own history of 911 threads, i'm sure you should agree fridge, that all the usual threads call for those that disagree with the official version to come up with evidence to back our version.

Well, this thread says: where's YOUR evidence that the USG version is to be accepted???

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well lawks-a-lawdy, the US government don't post here, do they? (I've checked. Nobody's registered as bush@neoconconspiracy.gov so far.)

Actually, come to think of it, even if Bush was a poster here it would technically count as a call-out thread... I expect he'd just post in Sports anyway.

 

[neilh]

that's what i thought about the description of this thread, but gathered what was meant was not for the USG to post here defending their point of view, but for folk who did believe in the USG version to post evidence, or folks who didn't to discuss why there seems to be a lack of evidence in their opinion.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Unfortunately we've had many many threads like that, and they all turn into indefinite bickering, worse than chav threads, which is why I asked whether there was any new information here.

 

[neilh]

Unfortunately we've had many many threads like that, and they all turn into indefinite bickering, worse than chav threads, which is why I asked whether there was any new information here.

well this one thankfully so far anyway seems to be bickering free and have a reasonably different viewpoint/side to it being discussed than the last few threads even though it doesn't as such have much more information (though the viewpoint of the guy in the link and the fact he thinks what he does could be seen as new info)

 

[Jazzz]

Unfortunately we've had many many threads like that, and they all turn into indefinite bickering, worse than chav threads, which is why I asked whether there was any new information here.

couldn't you have taken thirty seconds to read the stuff? Then you would realise that this is new material of significance.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I did, once I was less involved with unpacking. It isn't. There isn't anything new at all.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

It does raise a new angle for me, at least, and that is what happened to the plane wreckage? How does a plane that size disappear? What happened to the plane's wings? Can someone explain this to me?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I must admit, I've heard all the stuff about the Pentagon wreckage, but I've not heard anyone saying "there was no wreckage anywhere else" before.

I can't say I'm that inclined to really research the topic, given physics911's pedigree, which really leads me to the conclusion that George Nelson is a CIA asset, part of the obvious effort to discredit any investigation into USG activities....

 

[Jazzz]

I did, once I was less involved with unpacking. It isn't. There isn't anything new at all.

Yes there is. This is expert analysis from not only someone who was in the US military (your typical conspiraloon) but also an air accident investigator.

i.e., exactly the kind of person we are called on to provide on these threads. This chap hasn't spoken before.

And the point about serial numbers is new to me, and I assume these forums. It's very strong.

Do you still really believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

 

[bigfish]

... I think lot of people actually saw the incidents happen ?

Yes, that's right dyl, a lot of people did claim to have actually seen the incidents happen. Roughly speaking there are about 75 people who, in the hours and first days immediately following the Pentagon attack, claimed to have witnessed the event.

Take a look at the following list of self-described witnesses who claim to have seen a plane strike the Pentagon: Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren.

1. Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.

2. Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."

3. Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a right-wing propaganda portal. Bobby Erbele's brother is the White House fundraiser Bruce W. Eberle. Many are currently wondering just how Bobby, a former engineer with no journalism experience, managed to get Jeff Gannon (of recent Gannongate fame) so deep into the White House press room.

4. Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.

5. Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another right-wing propaganda portal - Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and other accomplished liars.

6. Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.

All of the people on this list share one thing in common - they are all professional liars of one description or another and there are more people like this on the eyewitness list.

 

[bigfish]

I can't say I'm that inclined to really research the topic, given physics911's pedigree, which really leads me to the conclusion that George Nelson is a CIA asset, part of the obvious effort to discredit any investigation into USG activities....

So, just what is physics9/11's "pedigree" then?

 

[fela fan]

Unfortunately we've had many many threads like that, and they all turn into indefinite bickering, worse than chav threads, which is why I asked whether there was any new information here.

No, to my recollection, we've had just ONE thread that attempted to go by this theme, but that soon got hijacked by the usual 'indefinite bickering'. However it wasn't without my efforts to keep it on track.

And that track was this: can those that accept the USG version of events provide us with reasons and/or evidence to back up their point of view. If enough such stuff were provided to us disbelievers, then maybe the strength of your argument would then persuade us that the USG are right in what they say, and then there'd be no more need of 911 threads.

So, why should we believe the USG and what it tells us happened that day?

 

[dylanredefined]

Well the planes were seen by a large amount of new york .people phoned from the planes .Why would the secret bad guys do the pentagon as well.The
new york event would be enough to justify war .The plane that hit the pentagon is missing they are photos of debris outside the pentagon .

 

[Jazzz]

I must admit, I've heard all the stuff about the Pentagon wreckage, but I've not heard anyone saying "there was no wreckage anywhere else" before.

I can't say I'm that inclined to really research the topic, given physics911's pedigree, which really leads me to the conclusion that George Nelson is a CIA asset, part of the obvious effort to discredit any investigation into USG activities....

There was wreckage. At both the Pentagon and WTC. What we don't have is any serial numbers.

If George Nelson is a CIA operative, what on earth are the CIA trying to hide? Why 'hide' the awful truth that the official story is true? Please explain!