MR PUSH, WHERE IS YOUR WIFE? / may 27, 2002 version
Is Meyssan right that AA77 never crashed into the Pentagon?
MR PUSH, WHERE IS YOUR WIFE? / may 27, 2002 version
A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by
Dear Mr Stephen Push, treasurer for the 911 victims association "Families of September 11":
let me first inform unaware readers that you are reportedly the widower of Lisa J. Raines, passenger of Flight AA77 that reportedly crashed into the Pentagon on 911.
I'd also say that you've been the de facto spokesman for your association - you're everywhere on the world media. The Bush propaganda parrots of the Associated Press call you "Steve".
No wonder they're on friendly terms with you, Mr Push: you've been toeing the Bush party line very faithfully and effectively in your recent statements - which carry the added "moral" value of a 911 victim relative: gravitas=added influence power.
Yet your start hadn't been bad.
I had been inspired and encouraged when I read your early march 2002 endorsement of a congressional investigation of security lapses on 911, including the gun report for AA11 (see my essay 'CATCH 9'). Therefore I sent you most of my Bush-did-it essays.
But since then, it's been downhill all along.
First, you supported the death penalty sought for Moussaoui by Attorney General Ashcroft. That very same Ashcroft who ought to be sitting in jail with Moussaoui for stonewalling a nation-wide canvass of flight school-students requested by the Minneapolis FBI after Moussaoui's arrest (Aug.16, 2001), and which could have prevented 911 (see my essay 'ZAC IN THE BUSH').
This is not about the death penalty issue. What astonished me is that, on the one hand, you want the execution of a little retard of a would-be "martyr" (Zacarias Moussaoui) - the last failed cog in the 911 wheel - but you don't even question the stand of a guy who may well be one of the masterminds of your wife's reported assassination (Ashcroft).
You got back on track on May 16, telling the Associated Press that Bush was wrong not to make public his Aug.6 hijack warning, because "My wife, had she known, would not have taken that flight".
But let's get to the main point. A statement of yours to the French daily "Libération", published on March 30, 2002 ("Pourquoi la démonstration de Meyssan est cousue de très gros fils blancs", par Fabrice Rousselot, online at: http://www.liberation.fr/quotidien/semaine/020330-000004112LARU.html )
The context is one of mainstream-media lynching of Thierry Meyssan's book "L'effroyable imposture", where the author had asked, quite reasonably, how AA77 could possibly have crashed into the Pentagon if there's hardly a trace of it in the photos taken right after the alleged crash.
I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING Meyssan says (I read the book and I know French). But: a lot of it makes quite a bit of sense to me. And NOT because I too have been researching Bush's complicity in 911. But because Meyssan does make some convincing points.
You though, Mr Push, disagreed on Libération. To Meyssan's provocative question: "Qu'est devenu le vol 77 d'American Airlines, ses passengers sont-ils morts?" (What happened to AA77, are its passengers dead?), you replied to the dogmatic French daily: "Ma femme, Lisa Raines, était dans le vol 77" = "My wife, L.R., was on Flight 77"; "ELLE A ÉTÉ IDENTIFIÉE GRÂCE À SES EMPREINTES DIGITALES [my caps]." = "She was identified through her fingerprints".
Now, the crash according to official sources "pulverized" the plane (this is how the Pentagon explained away the nearly total lack of plane débris in the photos).
Whatever wasn't "pulverized" on impact, melted away in the ensuing fire, the official story goes.
The next question is (and I think it's been asked already on one of Meyssan's websites:
how could your wife's fingerprints possibly be taken after such a "pulverizing" crash and "metal-melting" fire?
I won't rule out entirely that such a miraculous event may have happened: that Lisa Raines' fingers were found at all (already difficult) and that they were not only not charred, but so well-preserved that her fingerprints could be taken.
But you'll admit Mr Push, that questioning this point is not illogical, not far-fetched.
You continued on Libération: "J'ai un certificate de décès et j'ai pu l'enterrer" = "I have a death certificate and I was able to bury her."
Well, if it really is so, Mr Push:
- DID YOU EVER ACTUALLY SEE YOUR WIFE'S REMAINS?
- IF YES, DID HER FINGERS LOOK AS IF THEY WERE WELL ENOUGH PRESERVED AS TO ENABLE THE EXAMINER TO TAKE HER FINGERPRINTS?
- OR DID YOU BLINDLY TRUST WHATEVER THE PENTAGON TOLD YOU AND GAVE YOU?
- MOREOVER: EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE REMAINS YOU RECEIVED WERE YOUR WIFE'S, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE SHE WAS FOUND AT THE PENTAGON?
And - even in the case that you really saw for yourself, Mr Push: fingerprint matching has a much higher error rate than modern DNA testing. So don't you find it a little strange, to say the least, that the Pentagon didn't use DNA matching to identify the victims (as has been done for the WTC), but instead relied on error-prone fingerprinting?
In other words, Mr Push:
HOW CAN A HUSBAND SLEEP AT NIGHT, KNOWING THAT THE REMAINS HE BURIED MAY NOT BE HIS WIFE'S AT ALL?
HOW COME YOU DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF DOUBLE-CHECKING THROUGH A DNA TEST - POSSIBLY NOT WITH A GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED MEDICAL EXAMINER?
But it's not too late for that, Mr Push - you could lay the whole issue to rest and finally deal Meyssan the decisive blow - if you had those remains DNA-matched, although the question of WHERE those remains were found would remain open.
And - not only you, but all known AA77 victims' relatives who received remains ought to have DNA-tests performed.
You owe such a test not only to a victim's memory, Mr Push - you owe it to humanity as a whole, because we've all been enduring the consequences of 911 to this day, in terms of thousands of innocent deaths in Afghanistan, gestapoization of America, intensified Palestinian genocide, etc. etc.
I'll put my judgement on hold until the DNA results, Mr Push.
Meanwhile though, I can't help but continue to wonder.
To wonder how a failed pilot like Hani Hanjour, who allegedly flew AA77 into the Pentagon, could ever possibly perform such acrobatics as making a 270-degree bank in front of the White House (something few experienced pilots would pull off with a large jetliner) - especially since Hanjour, according to his flight school manager Peggy Chevrette, couldn't fly worth a damn (see my essay 'ZAC IN THE BUSH' for this).
Moreover: according to Edward Jay Epstein ( http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_WWDK2.htm ), "the fifth hijacker [of AA77], Hani Hanjour, according to the Washington Post, WAS NOT ON THE FLIGHT MANIFEST. THERE IS ALSO NO RECORD OF A RESERVATION OR TICKET [my caps]. If so, how did he get aboard?"
As you see, Mr Push, Meyssan and I are not alone in raising reasonable doubts on the official AA77 story.
I am truly surprised you don't join us.
Thierry Meyssan does not have the possibility of answering his question but - YOU do:
where is your wife, Mr Push?
poet, songwriter/singer, essayist
May 27, 2002 edition.
First version written on May 14, 16 and 18, 2002
No rights reserved. This material MAY and OUGHT be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.
add a comment on this article