Envy and Admiration

I won’t say much about “Why Do They Hate Us?” — a really excellent piece by a man who is perhaps in the ideal position to answer that question — as I don’t want to bias your expectations. Just go read it, because sometimes the truth is simple.

72 Responses to “Envy and Admiration”

  1. ymatt Says:

    My favorite line is this:

    “It is as though the notion of U.S. responsibility applies only within the 50 states, and I have no right to invoke it.”

    I think that cuts to the quick. Our leaders (for many decades) have striven to play an active role in the world, often for good reason, while shielding Americans from the collateral damage inflicted in far-away places to avoid political backlash. But this does a great disservice to Americans who have lost a sense of perspective of their place in the world, and now cannot fathom why people from these far-away places would fly planes into our buildings.

    Are our past actions an excuse for mass-murderer terrorists? Of course not, but they are a reason. Just like we had reason to arm jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviets, but that reason — no matter how justified — cannot be taken as an excuse for the damage done to the lives of common people. When we do not even attempt to make amends for this damage, we will pay the price with interest later.

    This is precisely why we cannot allow ourselves to violate American principles outside our borders, even when there may feel like good reason. I do believe that the world looks up to our stated and often demonstrated principles. But if we want this admiration to not turn to envy, we must treat the world as Americans, not as people who aren’t worthy of our respect.

  2. shcb Says:

    That was indeed a great article. His conclusion in the second to last paragraph is a bit of a false dilemma. The US can and for the most part does fulfill both his choices at the same time, an option he fails to give. The other component he misses is our need to protect our own interests. If we fail to protect those interests whether they be philosophical or concrete we will loose the respect of the people who find our freedoms so inviting. Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

    One last thing, did you notice that he isn’t so critical of what we have done in the past or the reasons we have done it but is critical of us leaving before we finish the job? Things that make you go hmmmmm.

  3. ymatt Says:

    I don’t believe it is a false dilemma. Here’s what the author writes:

    It can insist on its primacy as a superpower, or it can accept the universality of its values.

    You must pay attention to the two operative nouns there: “primacy” and “universality”. They are absolutes that are mutually exclusive. It is certanly possible for America to be a strong superpower and at the same time attempt to observe its values abroad. However, there will be situations where the two contradict and we are forced to make a choice. Choosing primacy means never allowing American values to stand in the way increasing (or avoiding the loss of) American power. Choosing universality means never allowing realpolitik to trump America’s moral obligations.

    And be careful to not misinterpret his criticism. He says:

    “Why do they hate us?” Simply because America has — often for what seemed good reasons at the time — intervened to shape the destinies of other countries and then, as a nation, walked away.

    I don’t believe that is meant to downplay the mistakes of our past actions, nor meant to define what “walking away” means. Clearly the obligation we should have taken up in Pakistan, from the author’s point of view, was not military. It was humanitarian. Similarly, it seems clear to me that the effect of our military presence in Iraq is, at the least, ambiguous. Disengaging militarily may be the least bad of all the bad options available to us.

    However, regardless of our military decisions, we do have an enormous humanitarian debt to pay in Iraq, that I hope we take seriously. We need to do our best to be seen as the benefactor of the Iraqi people. Wherever rebuilding or aid are possible, we must pursue it aggressively. When the Iraqi people ask for our help, we must provide it. And we must never, ever, be seen to value Iraqi lives as less valuable than those of Americans, if we truly believe that all men are created equal.

  4. shcb Says:

    Thanks Matt for that measured response, I think you may be right looking at it from that perspective, but I need to digest it for a while. While I’m thinking about it let me deposit one more question. In his example of drug traffic taking over Pakistan after our departure, it seems the Pakistani’s had some responsibilities to stop this problem themselves. How much responsibility do you think they should have bore?

    As he pointed out, I don’t have enough recollection or knowledge of the that timeframe to say one way or the other with any authority. The most I know of that war is that James Bond blew up a bridge with a five pound bomb he threw out of a speeding plane driven by a beautiful woman. It bounced less that a Tiger Woods chip shot.

    If Afghanistan and Iraq are similar in that we have a responsibility to the aftermath, and I think we do, I prefer taking direct action like we are in Iraq than the indirect action of propping up a movement or leader like we did in Pakistan. It is hard to offer direct help to the populace in an indirect action. I know you don’t think we should be there in the first place making this argument moot, but I think we eventually would have been somewhere over there, probably after more attacks, maybe Syria, Lebanon, or the Sudan, but somewhere, and the aftermath would have looked the same.

    I have always said we would be there 40 years, I don’t like that prediction, but I still think it.

  5. ymatt Says:

    It is of course the responsibility of any nation to care for its people the best it can. However, in a global sense, the true responsibility there lay with the party who was to blame for the problem. Certainly I’m sure the people believed that much of the responsibility lay with the US, and that’s where it was up to us to make amends.

    Similarly, I think the complaints that the Iraqi government isn’t moving fast enough to meet the benchmarks we’ve imposed on them are incredibly foolish. We are entirely responsible for the war and the destabilization that has occurred as a result. But the question is, how do we best fulfill that responsibility?

    I simply do not believe we can fix the civil war in Iraq with our military. Attempting to do so is causing more resentment than good will, day by day. I believe the primary reason we remain in Iraq is so those who sent us there (both in the executive and legislative branches) can avoid admitting fault, and on a desperate hope that certain legacies can be salvaged.

    No, the first step toward truly fulfilling our responsibilities is to admit our fault and demonstrate that the American system still works. This means holding those responsible to account as an act of international contrition. We must purge ourselves of the elements that prioritized primacy of power over universality of value. Only then will anyone be willing to believe that our help is anything but cynical self-service.

    I know this is where you’ll prefer the “direct approach” of just shooting the bad guys until they’re dead, but you have to understand that this is a case where doing so forces us to choose primacy over universality, and that is doing us perhaps irreperable harm. Sadly, I think the internal hatred of the Iraqi civil war is giong to have to play itself out, which will lead to many problems for the US and our interests. But when it’s time to rebuild, we need to be leading the international community to lay the bricks and mortar, and we need to do it with our heads bowed.

    That is the American way. Americans don’t just expect everybody else to do as their told, and when they screw up, they take their lumps and they do their best to make things right. Right now, people outisde the US hear our leaders saying that they have no regrets. That we need to stay the course. That 9-11 gives us the right to kidnap, torture, and kill whoever we need to to ensure our own security at whatever cost to the rest of the world. That is what they see. That’s what we need to take responsibility for.

  6. shcb Says:

    Yea, it sucks. As you said earlier, these are hard decisions. If you do nothing and half of Lisbon is incinerated by a bomb made in Iraq from yellow cake from Niger, the “world community” would be screaming, “why didn’t you do something, all your intel said he was buying uranium, even Joe Wilson said he was. You are the only superpower, it’s your responsibility to make sure these things don’t happen.” (I know the timing’s not right on Wilson, a little poetic license). If you go in and find nothing using that same intelligence those same people are screaming what they are now. Hell, if we would have found the mother load people like Knarly would say we snuck in months before the invasion and built that centrifuge under cover of darkness. You can’t win, you just do the best you can. It was a good article anyway, I’m nitpicking it way too much.

  7. knarlyknight Says:

    You want to see nitpick? shcb says: “Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.”

    FYI shcb, America is not 4000 years old.

    And as long as the neo-cons are in charge of America no-one is expecting anything but continued and accelerated destruction and annihilation of any past hope or proegress towards peace on earth.

  8. shcb Says:

    History of the world moron, I use 4000 years because a decade or so ago a study was done where they looked at the history during that timeframe, they found there were only a little ove 250 years where there was no military action happening somewhere in the world.

    If we stopped fighting today, do you think there would be peace on earth?
    It takes two to tango.

  9. enkidu Says:

    psssst! Babel sez teh wurld is jest 4000 yeerz old
    no need ta read enee thing els

    shbc jes speekin The Truth!

    violins is our only opshin!

  10. enkidu Says:

    And just to make the point absolutely clear: the world is bigger than wherever some folks are fighting today. The vast majority of human beings desire and work for peace (see wiki: Jesus et al) I wonder, even during WWI and WWII, what percentage of the world’s poulation were fighting or supporting fighters. I would bet a small percentage.

    The wise man knows when to fight and when not to. rwnjs view violence as the only viable means of conflict resolution. The options aren’t fight or flight any more. (see wiki: 21st century, civilization)

  11. ymatt Says:

    He means the history of the civilized world. Get the hell over yourself.

  12. NorthernLite Says:

    The world used to believe in and do a lot of stupid and repulsive things 4000 years ago. Does that mean its right today? Haven’t we evolved?

    Sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the notion that just because millions and millions of people have died in wars of the past that we need to perpetuate that practice until we destroy the whole planet. There has to be a better path to follow. And if there isn’t, we need to build a new path. All you need is a shovel and little bit of hope.

  13. ymatt Says:

    I’m with you there.

  14. shcb Says:

    And I wish I was taller and better looking

  15. ymatt Says:

    I also am with you there.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    July 22, 8:36 am shcb wrote:

    “Our freedoms were won by war and they have been maintained by war, perhaps that will change someday, but it has been the same for over 4000 years, I wouldn’t hold your breath.”

    Hate to nit-pic the SAME freakin point again, but it is clear that (a) the “it” in his sentence clearly refers to how “Our [your] freedoms” were “maintained” for “over 4000 years”; and, (b) if shcb can’t see that that is a nit-pic then rather it is he who is the moron.

    NorthernLite – once again, thanks for adding some sanity. My angst is that the US has blown its chance to find a better way for the world and is taking us down the tried and FAILED path of Empires and petty tyrants over the last 4000 years.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    Which brings us back to the tried and true “blame it on the enemey or blame it on them to make them the enemy”:

    http://digg.com/politics/Iraq_war_veteran_and_demolitions_expert_blows_the_cover_on_9_11_inside_job/who

  18. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    Thanks for bringing this up again. It’s a good illustration of what we are talking about in the contempt of congress thread above, making a mountain out of a molehill so Democrats don’t have to deal with the hard issues. To be clear, I’m not saying you are trying to dodge anything here, there is nothing to dodge really, but the tactics are similar.

    Moving on to your nitpic. It is just a style thing, I combined the history of the world with the history of the US, I could have put that statement in several sentences making sure anyone who read it would know exactly what I was talking about, but by combining two thoughts into one sentence it makes the reader stop and think about it a bit, maybe even reread the sentence. You can do these things with the written word, can’t do them with the spoken word without being repetitive or annoying. It also has the advantage of giving the impression of the US as a sovereign nation while being part of the world community without beating you to death with it. And it still gets its original point across. Not a bad days work for a little sentence.

    “Tried and FAILED path of Empires and petty tyrants over the last 4000 years.” war stopped Hitler didn’t it? Seems pretty successful to me.

  19. knarlyknight Says:

    Funny you should make so much over a nit-pic, essentially to admit the point made in the first place.

    As for Hitler, my WWII history is only fair, but I believe that he could be considered a tyrant whose dream of a third Reich (Empire) by way of war FAILED miserably.

    The point is that had Hitler acted more responsibly and prepared the world for the Age of Aquarius – instead of engaging in warfare and genocide – he probably would have been a lot happier with the results (well maybe he did have a death wish so he might be happpy with his results.) Similarly, had the neo-cons – with their control over the overwhelming power of the USA (guberment, press, economy and military) and having near full support in 2001 of the global community – decided to take the world on a path of enlightenment
    then
    human consciousness would be in a far different place than that represented by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay now (well maybe the neo-cons have a wish for the Rapture to whisk them all away so maybe you and they are happy with the way things have been going under their watch so far.)

    The rest of us around the world want a better future than what can be achieved by fueling the military industrial complex.

  20. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    Sometimes my bluster gets in the way of my common sense answers in these forums. Please let me be clear. I too hold your hopes and dreams of a war free world, I just think that human nature is what it is and there will always be people who will want to get what others have without working for it whether that be stuff or power or control. When these people reach an audience with similar motivations, military action will always be required. There is nothing wrong with dreaming of a time that will not be true, just as there is nothing wrong with my dreaming of a time I can cruise the oceans on my private yacht. But until that time comes it is only responsible to continue with what works. In the meantime keep your hopeful faith and try to change the world where it can be changed. Nixon’s vision of bringing China out of communism with blue jeans instead of bullets seems to be working. Reagan’s vision of out spending the Soviets seems to be working. The UN’s vision of disarming South Africa worked. Your vision of peaceful resolution works time after time, but there are times when it doesn’t. none of us are Solomon and there is no parallel universe where we can try two ideas and pick the outcome, we just have to do the best we can.

  21. enkidu Says:

    gosh thanks matty!
    I followed your advice and got over myself
    I feel SO much better now

    look, if you want to ‘seriously’ ‘debate’ rwnj and his looney sidekick lefty, using reason, logic, etc etc more power to you. Me? I am just having some fun yanking the spittle-flecked beards of some radical rwnjs for a laugh or three. Note that I am not insisting you mock and deride wicked stoopid statements like rwnj’s classic “I am the master” lunacy (gee, why weren’t you jumping in there to tell him to get the hell over hissef?) or “we found teh WMDz!!!1!1!!”

    To each their own, eh?

    You use reason if you like, I’ll use mockery.

    Have a nice day!

  22. shcb Says:

    ok…. don’t know if I followed all that.

  23. leftbehind Says:

    The real shame of this is that Ymatt and Shcb were really trying to say something before everything went to shit, as it usually does around here. Maybe I am looney, but at least I had the decency to keep it to myself while someone was actually trying to accomplish something.

    Enk – you’re stepping on my lines, buddy, and my shtick doesn’t fit you so well. Your “yanking the beards and having a laugh” bit is repeated almost verbatim from something I wrote to you months ago, only I meant it. You get your feelings hurt far too easy to fool anybody here with the cavalier stance you’re trying to adopt. You care too much and you’re actually trying to say something, you just don’t come across very well and get pissed off when everybody doesn’t fall to the floor at your blustering repartee. You resent Schb because he gets the best of you – even when he’s wrong, and you resent YMatt because he’s more or less on your side, but has eclipsed you in pretty much every way you could be eclipsed. You back Knarly up because he makes you feel smart, and you egg me on because you need a boogie man to argue with, otherwise your explosive hostility would seem even more misplaced than it already does.

    The doctor is real in. 5 cents, please.

  24. enkidu Says:

    http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/07/24/iraq-war-dead-for-june-2006/
    scroll to (or read it all, it’s funny!)
    enkidu Says:
    September 1st, 2006 at 9:36 am

    The Google says only one other use of “spittle flecked beard” predates my use
    (doubt I read it back then, but…)

    I am not angry at all buddy! I enjoy baiting rwnjs because it is hilarious how extremists just can’t see the truth that the majority of the Rethuggle™®© party has become a corrupt cancer upon the body of America. ymatt blew up at me because I don’t subscribe to his ‘let’s reason with extemists’ approach. I make fun of rwnjs – sure I sprinkle in facts and figures, I respond to the wing-nuttery and ask for facts and figures from rwnjs. Invariably you or tv or (to a much lesser extent) shbc will hurtle some rwnj invective that is just so far removed from reality that it is hilarious. I enjoy Stewart and Colbert because the humor these shows put out has kept me laughing instead of crying. Or getting angry. You never see Enk angry. You no want see Enk angry.

    I don’t ‘back knarly up’ on his 9/11 claims because I am just not convinced these jokers are competent enough to make it all happen in some superduper conspiracy.

    lefty, you have consistantly provided a source of mirth and head shaking non sequitors and for these reasons I salute you (guess which finger! ;-)

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    “The doctor is real in. 5 cents please.”

    leftbehind envisions himself as a “doctor”(?!) for providing a speculative tirade (aka temper tantrum) that aims to hurt? LOL at the fantasy world these rwnj’s create for themselves.

  26. leftbehind Says:

    Yes Enk, that thread was a funny one. Too bad TeacherVet had to spoil all the laughs trying to be serious. Good job trying to distance yourself from Knarly, too. It’s goofs like him who take down the elevated tone you and I battle so hard to maintain around here.

    Not to go all speculative again, but I’ll bet you’re really cute when you’re mad. Not that you’re not adorable under usual circumstances. you know, I’d really like to meet you someday – once this thing with Knarly succumbs to the inevitable, I mean. Maybe we could meet up somewhere – I guess my place would best, since we wouldn’t want to become a “topic” around your Dad’s compound. We could get a pizza and rent a movie. Have you seen “Jeffrey?”

  27. leftbehind Says:

    …and Knarly, the idea of you telling anyone else they live in a fantasy world is amusing. Tell us some more about how Starbucks blew up the World Trade Center. Or was it the Keebler Elves who sank the Titanic? Judging from Inky’s sudden change of heart on the matter, it looks like you’ll be flying solo this time.

  28. knarlyknight Says:

    Poor Leftbehind, he has stooped to mockery. Fact is, there remain many
    reasons to doubt his FANTASY official story of Sept. 11, 2001:

    THE DAY ITSELF – EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

    1) AWOL Chain of Command
    a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
    b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

    2) Air Defense Failures
    a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
    b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
    c. Was there an air defense standdown?

    3) Pentagon Strike
    How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon?

    4) Wargames
    a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
    b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?

    5) Flight 93
    Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? What explanation is there for the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles if Flight 93 supposedly crashed head first into the ground, and is there a better explanation for that than that it was shot down (and if that is the best explanation then why would that occur?)

    THE DAY – POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

    6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

    7) Demolition Hypothesis
    What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See “The Case for Demolitions,” the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and …, below.)

    FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

    8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
    etc.

    9) Able Danger, Plus – Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
    a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities – including the CIA, the US military”s “Able Danger” program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
    b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.
    10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
    A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers – as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration”s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the “Bojinka” plot, and John O”Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

    11) Insider Trading
    a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
    b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
    c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

    12) Who were the perpetrators?
    a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
    b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had “doubles,” all of which is omitted from official investigations.
    c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-50suspects,0,1825231.story

    THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

    13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
    a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department”s translation of it is fraudulent.
    b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dyalisis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
    c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
    d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the “data base” (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

    14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
    a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
    b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
    c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
    d. Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

    15) Poisoning New York
    The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

    16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
    The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

    17) Anthrax
    Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax – which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations – were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

    18) The Stonewall
    a. Colin Powell promised a “white paper” from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
    b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
    c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

    19) A Record of Official Lies
    a. “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
    b. “Iraq was connected to 9/11″ – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    WAIT A SECOND
    , the 911 Commission debunked all that stuff, right?

    No, it did not. Here is a list of the ommissions and distortions in that report as compiled by Dr. Griffin:

    The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
    by Dr. David Ray Griffin
    Sunday, May 22, 2005

    In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

    Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

    It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

    Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

    One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

    Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

    1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers—including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC—are still alive (19-20).

    2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta—such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances—that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

    3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

    4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

    5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

    6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

    7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

    8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed—an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

    9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

    10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”—a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

    11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

    12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

    13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel—that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel—made no sense in this case (30).

    14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

    15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

    16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

    17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

    18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

    19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

    20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner—even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

    21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras—including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike—could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

    22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

    23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

    24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

    25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

    26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

    27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

    28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

    29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

    30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

    31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

    32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

    33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

    34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family—all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period—were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

    35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

    36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

    37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

    38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

    39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

    40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

    41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

    42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).

    43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

    44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

    45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

    46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

    47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

    48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

    49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

    50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

    51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).

    52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).

    53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

    54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

    55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart—were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

    56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

    57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

    58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

    59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

    60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

    61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).

    62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command–even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

    63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

    64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

    65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

    66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).

    67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

    68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

    69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

    70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

    71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

    72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).

    73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

    74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

    75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

    76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).

    77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

    78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

    79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

    80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

    81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”—although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

    82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference—although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

    83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).

    84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

    85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

    86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36—in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

    87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon—one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

    88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

    89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

    90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

    91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

    92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

    93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

    94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

    95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

    96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

    97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

    98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

    99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

    100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

    101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

    102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

    103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

    104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

    105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

    106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

    107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

    108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

    109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

    110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

    111. The claim—made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them—that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

    112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

    113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

    114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

    115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

    I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)

  30. leftbehind Says:

    Amazing what you can find on a simple Starbucks mug – but all of this is beside the point. The real issue here is this: Do you or do you not feel that, during the course of our previous, loooooong discussion of “911-Truth,” Enkidu was explicitly on your side in this matter, at least enough to state, in black and white, that it was plausible that a small group of sappers could have covertly wired explosives into the WTC complex? Do you feel that his dismissal of that idea, or this very thread, constitutes a contradiction of his previous statements, and that his refusal to further “back Knarly up” in what he calls a “superduper conspiracy” theory constitutes an about-face abandonment of the theories you have tried so passionately to communicate here?

    I’m not mocking you, although I think you are a bit misguided. I just think Inky has used you and “9-11 Truth” as a springboard for his vitriol, and now seeks to distance himself from your ideas because he doesn’t want to look like a nut. It’s like that old saw about a fat girl and moped: they’re both a lot of fun to ride on, as long as your friends don’t see you.

    Again, I’m not mocking you. I’ve had my heart broken by bad boys, too.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty,
    Who knows what Ink is thinking. Maybe the heat got a little too hot for him, maybe he just realized you guys were so closed minded that it was a big waste of time, or anyone of a zillion other things. Can’t see how that affects me.

    “In terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”
    — Gary Hart – Former Senator

    I think your comments about me places you firmly into category 5, 6 and/or 7 at this link:

    http://www.911proof.com/FactSheet.html

  32. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    You’re getting kind of comical.

    I goggled “shcb lies.com” the other day, and was guided to your old 911blogger site. They said I CLAIMED to be a fifty something machine shop owner…. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

    To answer Mr Hart’s question, the reason no one was fired, is because they all did their jobs the best they could with what they had. We just plain got beat, we lost a battle, it happens in war and in life, the team you have assembled may be the best you can put together and still loose, doesn’t mean you fire them all, you just learn from your mistakes and move on. Since we haven’t had an attack since 911, they must have learned something. Living in Colorado, I have had to suffer Mr Hart a long time, he is a finger in the wind politician. He is also quite liberal and will latch onto anything anti American. Always has.

    I love this “I’m a dissenter, so I must be a patriot since the constitution gives me the right to be a dissenter. Poppycock, having the right to dissent doesn’t mean you are right when you dissent.

  33. leftbehind Says:

    Yes Knarly, I think 5, 6 and 7 pretty much sum up my feelings on the 9-11 matter. I also consider having these views lampooned on a site like “911proof.com” a good sign I’m on the right track.

    I see that Starbucks has opened locations in some of the Kroger stores around here. Do you think Alex Jones knows about this? And why are there three sixes on my Kroger plus card?

  34. leftbehind Says:

    I looked over the “911proof” list again, and 14, 15 and 18 also sound like me too. I think Inky’s at 14.

  35. shcb Says:

    Knarly,

    Do you or any of you conspiracy nuts ever follow the links you post? So I go to your 18 point list, number 15 catches my attention since it just says “no, that is not true”. I follow the that link, again the thing that catches my eye is the power outage the week before 911, this seems like it would be easy to check out. We don’t have hundred story buildings in Denver but I would assume if all the power was going to be taken down in that large a building as this story implies, it would make local news for several days in advance. I know if a major highway is shut down for maintenance people are warned so they can make adjustments as needed.

    The bottom line is an interview with a guy named Scott Forbes, a Brit that is an IT guy on the 97th floor, he occasionally has business on a few other floors, they tell him they will be cutting the power, he doesn’t know on how many floors. That’s it, that is all there is, so we make the conspiracy bigger, Scotland Yard or some European agency interviews him, he can’t understand why no one from the FBI interviews him, maybe the Brits interview their people and we interviewed ours, seems like a matter of efficiency to me. He had nothing to add of importance so end of story. But poor Scott is more important than that, so now he is the darling of these goofballs.

    Which brings us to number 18. This list of 18 items and all the links attached to them have probably a hundred tentacles, no one is going to track them all down, so if someone points out a couple of them as hoaxes or lies or distortions, they just say, “well you found the only two points that can be disputed, everything else is true”.

    So we have this, the Pentagon aircraft that could not have done what it did and the 10,000 deaths on the Highway of Death that I have squashed, if I had the time I bet I could squash 80 or 90 percent of your conspiracy nonsense.

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, lefty – Your continued use of insults is a transparent attempt to discredit through mockery (e.g. “goofballs”) and the weakest of weak rebuttals.

    With a disingenuous claim of being unable to address *all* the evidence, shcb goes to the peculiar extreme of picking one obscure item (shcb went all the way down the http://www.911proof.com list to item #15 before finding his example.)

    Then from the evidence presented to support that one item, shcb picked one further item (a weekend power-down) and re-packaged it to imply: (a) it should have been as newspaper worthy as would have been a power-outage during the work-week and (b) that discrediting this item is somehow very relevant and that anyone suggesting otherwise is dealing in sleight-of-hand.

    As for (a) please note that a weekend power-outage is not fundamental to central 911 theories, it would be of interest in a more detailed investigation if one wants to determine whether perpetrators had the means and opportunity to plant the charges, but this remains a peripheral issue and like so much of this crime it remains something yet to be properly investigated.

    As for (b), I defer to another’s words that I found way down in the comments (of this link http://www.georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-could-they-plant-bombs-in-world.html ) :

    None of this diminishes the likelihood of explosives. It would be nice to have evidence for power downs and other “opportunities”, but the fact is there were many empty floors and offices and there were plenty of opportunities for people to come and go unnoticed. There was certainly NO SHORTAGE of witnesses who heard explosions and saw evidence of bombs on 9-11, in fact bombs and explosions are all you hear about as the event unfolds, yet strangely the “911 Commission” whose members all had major conflicts of interest, did not investigate any of this or question anyone who came forward with the information. NIST (with it’s Bush appointed director) also failed to check for explosives.

    Or even more to the point:

    The question:
    “how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?” shouldn’t be directed at those who have enough common sense to recognize what took place before their own eyes. This question should be asked in a criminal investigation. It should be asked by state and federal prosecutors-maybe prosecutors in the world arena.

    How many times should we allow stall tactics that sound more like “I didn’t see the schedule to set up the bombs, so physics doesn’t apply to the 3 buildings.”

    Equally laughable is the statement “every real-life scenario has anomalies.” Is it me or has somebody created a new energy source with steel, concrete, office contents and jet fuel? No temperature coefficients, no stress formulas, no computer animations will ever explain how gravity and smouldering jet fuel fires provide anywhere near enough energy for the following:

    1. The pools of molten steel in the basements of all three demolished buildings.

    2. The speed of the collapses of all three buildings.

    3. The complete annihilation of the Twin Towers and their contents.

    Keep in mind we should also view Popular Mechanic’s laughable attempt to mathematically demonstrate a “spontaneous collapse” as criminal evidence. In fact, the article is self incriminating. They are accomplices.

    The point is that a conspiracy theory needs to adhere to all the evidence, not simply the evidence selected to fit the theory.

    NIST chose to ignore the molten steel smouldering underground (smouldering at 2000 deg. F initially then between 600 and 1500 deg F apparently for weeks) which was inconsistant with their jet fuel/office building fire/collapse pre-supposition. NIST has yet to account for that, after initially denying it and then having to recant. (Just like NIST has yet to account for pushing the NIST half-baked pancake theory which was thoroughly debunked by real (independent) structural engineers.)

    Here is another account of the NIST debacle:

    On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!

    The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams — then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

    Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.
    (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

    And in a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”
    http://www.wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel.

    Source: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

    The temperatures of molten metal at WTC collapse sites were simply not possible without high explosives (such as the enhanced thermate identified by Prof. Jones); jet fuel and burning buildings are hot when they burn but they have no known capability to melt steel in the conditions existing at the WTC. High explosives are quite capable of doing it.

    The forensic evidence, and the NIST claims, are being analysed by independent (i.e. not on the administration’s payroll): physicist’s, structural engineers, architects and others such as Prof. Jones. Their forensic findings are available at:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com

    and here is another example of a good analysis:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

    NIST also claimed they found “no evidence” of explosives (i.e. thermite) when there was no official search for such evidence. Again, no accounting by NIST for that leap into another deceptive abyss.

    Independent researchers pouring over the remaining evidence have found some pictures taken before the steel was literally shipped away to China that show evidence of super-thermite cut I-beams (telltale angle cuts with slag characteristics of cutting charges.) NIST did not take into consideration that evidence and has not addressed it.

    NIST relied on a sample of approx. 1% of the steel (the rest of the evidence was destroyed) and this 1% showed no heating beyond 475 deg. F . . . yet they claimed the steel reached much higher temperatures to weaken sufficiently to support their assumed 45 centimeter I-beam sagging that was required for their computer models to show a collapse. . . deducing possible conclusions from such NIST computer input manipulations is elementary, and damning for NIST.

    Verifiability (i.e. the long established scientific method) is to provide your data and assumptions for review by other scientists. NIST has been less than forthcoming in providing the very relevant details of their work, to say the least about their racalcitrant stance. This is in contrast to the scholars and their studies posted on http://www.journalof911studies.com by the physicists, structural engineers, etc. at http://www.journalof911studies.com

    On a related topic…
    Shcb also takes issue with #18. For reference, here is #18 :

    18. I’ve heard claims made by the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” which have turned out to be false. Doesn’t that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?

    No, for two reasons. First, there are so many lines of evidence which overwhelmingly prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that even if one or two theories are disproved, the basic thesis still stands. (note shcb – the power-down item in #15 was not even a theory, one might consider it to be a possible lead.)

    Moreover, there are some people who are simply sloppy in their thinking, and who throw out (propose) unfounded theories which do not stand up under scrutiny. In addition, there are, unfortunately, disruptive people who are working hard to make crazy claims to intentionally discredit the movement. This is a traditional tactic for undermining those who question the government.

    In attacking #18, shcb sets out a vacuous rationalization compared to the principle which supports #18.

    That principle is this: a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence states that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion.

    shcb attempts to imply that lack of reliable evidence for an inconsequential power-down of a WTC tower in the weeks before the collapse makes a difference to whether the government fairy tale is supported by laws of physics. That is an absurdly vacuous position, even for shcb.

    An example of a consequential piece of evidence is the presence of molten metal weeks later. It cannot be “irrelevant” to the NIST explanation of the collapse, since it was an effect of that event. If the NIST cannot explain it (they cannot), then the NIST’s account is incomplete and fails to satisfy the fundamental requirement of reeasoning with the total evidence, which, once again states that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion. NIST is evading the issue of the molten steel. It cannot account for important, relevant evidence. Unless it can do that, it does not matter how official or authoritative or well received by the adoring media NIST may be, their theory remains a magical fairy tale compared to the other explanations which fit the available evidence better.

    I have mentioned but one of thirteen critical pieces of evidence that do not support the government fairy tale, based on the physical evidence (or lack thereof) alone. For the detail (ahem), see the Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports and to Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis here:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

    For now, one has to ignore too much evidence to believe the official conspiracy theory. In the highly unlikely event that NIST or Dr. Jones or anyone else arrives at a plausible explanation for the molten pools that fit with the official explanation for the collapse(s), the NIST explanation for the collapse(s) still remains a (scientifically) less favoured theory than others that fit all the relevant evidence better.

    Sorry shcb if you do not like that and would prefer to debunk straw men and argue about less relevant details, but those are the rules. I did not make them up, they arrive at your feet courtesy of the scientific method and natural laws.

    That goes both ways though – it applies equally to what shcb and lefty like to disparagingly call conspiracy theories.

    Shcb and Lefty show a frustration that when evidence comes to light which debunks a faulty conspiracy theory and the theorists simply move on to another version of the theory. For folks like shcb it is maddening because they seem to think it shows a sneakiness or worse because they do not have the courage to defend one theory to its death and then admit they were wrong. Sorry shcb and lefty, but not everyone shares your dogmatism for pet theories.

    Discarding a theory (or parts of a theory) that does not fit the evidence, and adoption of a better fitting model is a very healthy thing to do. The unhealthy truth is that Lefty and shcb have glued themselves to the governments conspiracy theory. That despite an enormous body of evidence that they claim to have looked at but from their erroneous arguments it is clear that they have not. At least, they have not been able to step outside their comfort zones and consider information on its own terms and merits rather than through the lens of some authority figure such as the New York Times, NIST or Popular Mechanics (all of which present fatally flawed explanations of 911).

    So for a while yet, I will expect their same old tired attempts at put-downs, ridicule, overlooking of evidence and laughable arguments like the buildings could not have been demolished by explosives because we do not know who, how or when that could have been accomplished.

    Well, if you do not investigate you will never know.

    Maybe that is their goal after all.

  37. shcb Says:

    Investigations have been done, they just didn’t reach the conclusions you wanted. And probably never will. Because your theory doesn’t make sense. I simply picked the most obvious example I could use. The reason I did this is to show that someone just taking a little more than a glance at your “evidence” can pick out obvious holes. So why publish something that obvious? Two reasons come to mind, if you can’t impress with intellect, baffle ‘em with bullshit. Just throw so much stuff out there they can’t keep up with it all (number 18). I think this is your personal tactic whether you do it on purpose or not. The other possible reason is all you have is a bunch of easily debunkable tidbits which takes back to number one.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb continues with his opinions and purposefully misses the point about relevant vs irrelevant details.

  39. shcb Says:

    What point am I missing, I thought I was making a point. Forget about irrelevant points they are…irrelevant, give me one, just one relevant point.

    Moreover, it doesn’t matter how many points you make if they don’t fit together. If you have three boxes of bicycle parts, it doesn’t matter if they are good or bad parts, if they all come from different bikes, you probably won’t get a working bicycle put together. If they are from the same bike they will all fit, and if a some minor parts are not good you may still have a functional bike, but you will never have a functional bike if the parts don’t fit.

  40. leftbehind Says:

    Hey, I’m not mocking anyone. I never called anybody a goofball. In fact, I’ve tried to help you by asking questions, and giving you an opportunity to expand on your points. For instance, back on that thread that went on and on and on for literally hundreds of posts, you made a statement concerning “the Illuminati,” and I asked you to explain what you meant by that term, and whether or not it might relate to your man, Alex Jones and his investigative reporting on the Illuminati and their activities at Bohemian Grove and Starbucks. I thought that was a pretty interesting question, on-topic, and in keeping with the tone to which the conversation had sunk to that point. That’s just one example, among many, of me trying to be accomodating, constructive and give you an opportunity to express yourself. Just because Inky is a backstabber is no reason to go after me.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    You two don’t sound very intelligent any more.

    Who the hell are the Illuminati?

  42. ymatt Says:

    fnord.

  43. shcb Says:

    Knarly

    Oh?

  44. leftbehind Says:

    I don’t know who the Illuminati are, either Knarly, let’s see what infowars.com, one of your favorite websites, which you often use as a reference here has to say about them:

    http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/in_your_face.htm

  45. leftbehind Says:

    Is this thing on?

  46. leftbehind Says:

    I don’t know much about the Illuminati either, Knarly, let’s see what Infowars.com, one of your favorites sites, and one you site as a source on several occasions here at Lies.com, has to say about them:

    infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/in_your_face.htm

  47. leftbehind Says:

    You’ll have to add the “www.” and paste the link yourself, guys. The Skull and Bones seems to have blocked my ability to post comments with links in them.

    Here are some fascinating excerpts:

    “Fascinated by symbolism and numerology, the globalists’ favorite tactic is to leave blueprints to their plans “hidden in plain view.” From messages delivered to the masses through the media and films to Time Warner’s all-seeing eye, we are repeatedly reminded by the illuminati themselves that they are controlling us and are omnipresent. World leaders from Clinton to Prince William have been photographed proudly flashing the sign of the devil. Architecture around the globe is laid out to represent their occult icons or structured based on occult numerology (like the pyramid Mitterand had constructed at the Louvre, which is made of 666 pieces of gold glass). The New World Order’s symbolism is everywhere and there are globalist fingerprints all over the September 11th attacks as well as the Madrid train bombing.”

    “The New York lottery drew 9,1,1 as the winning pick-3 combination in their digit lottery on Sept. 11, 2002. Fascinated with the occult, the globalists believe in the power of numerology. This is just one example of the power elite leaving their numerological fingerprints and associating themselves with the Sept. 11th attacks.”

    “Signaling out to their Illuminati overlords — both Clinton and Bush have been photographed making “the sign of the devil” at public events.”

    And look Knarly…right there at the top of the page…it’s ALEX JONES!

  48. knarlyknight Says:

    Yes, I was right. You two are not very intelligent at all.

  49. leftbehind Says:

    What’s not intelligent? I’ve simply done what you do most of the time around here. I went to Alex Jones’ website, and fashioned a posting by cutting and pasting items from his site onto this one. I admit that it was a little thick of me to identify my sources and use those stupid quotation marks but, just between you and me, I don’t want anyone to think I actually came up with any of this cack myself.

    Maybe I am dumb, but thanks to Alex Jones, I’m learning all sorts of cool stuff about 9-11 an’ the Illuminati, an’ the North American Union, too. Before long, my superficial understanding of various occult concepts, along with my natural tendency to knuckle under to extreme personalities and susceptibility to wacked-out conspiracy theories will make me just about as smart as you are.

  50. shcb Says:

    My little tiny brain hurts, I think I sprained it working all those difficult mathematical calculations to prove the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn’t doing anything all that special. Let’s see, I had to figure how long it would take a plane to travel a given distance at a given speed. By the way how are you and the other big brain guys at 911 blogger doing on the calculations that show it was an impossible feat? That’s right; they said it was impossible, case closed. Well, I need to but my tiny, insignificant brain to bed, when I get up tomorrow do the pointy part of the shoes go in or out?

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks ymatt, “fnord” was new to me.

  52. ymatt Says:

    That’s because They have trained you to not see it.

    Hail eris!

  53. knarlyknight Says:

    ymatt- ha ha …

    Leftbehind – What is not intelligent is your reliance and shcb’s reliance on only pre-approved “authoritative” news sources.

    Your recent posts make it obvious that you have no ability to discern for yourself what is good information, suspicious information, or bad information.

    In its place, you have accepted a list of “approved sources” from which you will accept virtually everything no matter how far fetched, and a list of “non-approved sources” from which you will refuse to even entertain the question that there might be some truth to their reports.

    The world is not so black and white and your treating it as such (especially in regard to sources of information) displays an astounding lack of intelligence.

  54. leftbehind Says:

    My reliance on “consensus reality” is a big stumbling block as well. Were it that everyone were so encumbered. I think that somebody around here has a problem discerning what is good information from what isn’t, but it’s not me.

    youtube.com/watch?v=zNBiVNNTk0c

    You need to re-read JBC’s most recent posts very carefully, particularly the one about the UFO video. I think he might have had you in mind when he posted that one, anyway.

  55. shcb Says:

    But Knarly, those sources are “pre-approved” by me, because they have proven themselves over the years to be reliable, they aren’t pre-approved by the government, Kos and 911 blogger are still out there, no one from the government has had them blocked like this site was when I was in China, or Fox News was for so long in Canada (maybe it was just O’Reiley). I have proven the sites you quote to be inaccurate, and I’m being kind with that statement, but they are still there. Question: is “good” information a) accurate information or b) information that hurts this administration.

  56. ymatt Says:

    or c) information that upholds this administration.

    This comment thread has turned into a fascinating study of selective realities. I think I tend to subscribe to leftbehind’s consensus reality (and that’s a fantastic phrase by the way).

  57. leftbehind Says:

    These are strange days, what can I say?

    Knarly – Here’s a question for you: How is it that you’ve spent so much time on Alex Jones’ website, but you’ve never heard of the Illuminati? Alex Jones goes on at length about the Illuminati on his site, and in his books. Most of his videos on Youtube deal with the Illuminati. And it’s not like “Illuminati” is an alien term on very many “9-11 Truth” sites and blogs (as a google of the terms “911” and “Illuminati” will show.) Do you just post this stuff to us and not read it yourself? Even if your reading is selective – glossing over the screwy parts to isolate the more plausible information – you’d still have to encounter the term a great deal. It would be like reading Moby Dick and never realizing the novel takes place on a boat. Could this be why you are so willing to believe these people, even when they go to such implausible extremes – you never really bother to read or analyze what they’re saying?

  58. shcb Says:

    Matt,

    I believe it’s called a false dilemma? C) would be as bad as b) unless they are based on a). The problem With people like Knarly, and the right wing morons using the same tactics is they will sacrifice a) to save even the smallest aspect of their argument for or against c) or b). Honorable, rational people have preconceived notions and are arguing that point of view by enhancing the importance of certain aspects of a) that help their side and downplaying the aspects that don’t. But their points revolve around the gray areas of the a) when there is a grey area. You and I will agree that all the pieces of the puzzle need to eventually fit, one of us may want to start in the center of the puzzle and one of us may want to build the border first, but neither of us will get out the scissors to make the parts fit. These guys will mix “dogs playing poker” and the Mona Lisa if that’s what it takes to make the puzzle fit the card table.

    I think LB’s last remark sums up Knarly and many like him perfectly, they don’t stop to even think what they are saying, it just never occurs to then, they hate Bush, Clinton, their boss, wife, whoever, whatever, as long as it fits the cause.

  59. ymatt Says:

    It’s all over, we’ve lost. Here’s the proof.

  60. shcb Says:

    I conceed.

  61. leftbehind Says:

    Ouch!

  62. knarlyknight Says:

    Leftbehind and shcb, most of your questions appeared rhetorical, off topic, or purposely silly! I’ll address a couple of issues that may remain and for any questions that I have overlooked please just let me know.

    re: Alex Jones – his website is sometimes the source of first hand reports referenced by others and that is about the extent of my interest. Some of the evidence he provides to support his beliefs I find compelling (e.g. existence of state sponsored terror.) Other items he covers I have differences of opinion about, or have not seen a compelling reason to investigate further (e.g. illuminati). BTW, I note his slant and discount any claims he makes to some degree due to his obvious biases (just as I note the slant and discount to some degree the obvious bias of Pentagon reports e.g. of current events, or deaths, in Iraq.)

    re: Information - Is “good” information a) accurate information or b) information that hurts this administration…or c) information that upholds this administration.

    clearly, that must be rhetorical… shcb’s harsh criticisms apply best to his near unwavering support for the administration’s Iraqi quagmire,
    but more importantly,
    it applies to his wilful ignorance of specific facts, and his contorted efforts to denigrate – and then disregard – people who show him these facts by labelling them as anti-administration, liberals, conspiracy theorists, terrorist supporters, etc. and then puffing himself up as somehow being superior because he insults people with insulting labels.

    All that is a diversion so that he does not have to look at, and can use the diversion to persuade others from truly examining, the pieces of “good information” he finds disturbing or the questions that are disturbing.

    For example this shcb sarcasm: My little tiny brain hurts, … I sprained it working all those difficult mathematical calculations to prove the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn’t doing anything all that special. Let’s see, I had to figure … By the way how are you and the other big brain guys at 911 blogger doing on the calculations that show it was an impossible feat? That’s right; they said it was impossible, case closed. Well, I need to but my tiny, insignificant brain to bed, when I get up tomorrow do the pointy part of the shoes go in or out?
    First, the 911bloggers suspected that the calculations shcb provided was simply fuzzy math, but they also suggested that he submit it to http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org for review in case it might have merit! I told him to do so if he wanted to support the claims of the Bush administration about that flight. Apparently, shcb knows or suspects his figurings are foolish as he did not dare to submit them to these or any other expert pilots for comment. Second, the shcb description of Hanjours manoeuvres (with his impressive seat of the pants calculations) assumes that Hanjour’s supposed flight into the Pentagon was made possible by a joystick to be jerked back and forth, but Boeing controls are, to understate the point, far more complicated than that. Third, shcb mis-characterizes 911truth statements by saying the flight was claimed to be an impossible feat, when the actual claim is this: We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles. The pilots press release concerning their actual submission to the National Traffic and Safety Board concerning flight 77 into the Pentagon is here: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html (try to find that press release anywhere in the mainstream media, despite the impeccable credentials of the pilots who signed it!)

    Second, the molten metal which was indisputably present for weeks under the rubble of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, and which by all evidence can only be primarily molten steel, is not accounted for by NIST. The NIST theories, both NIST recanted and current theories, about the collapse of WTC can not – repeat: CAN NOT – account for the presence of this molten metal. This is a MAJOR problem for the official theory of the collapse.

    Third, …never mind, if you wanted “good” information rather than information that does not conflict with consensus reality or what the administration tells you to believe, then you would have found it by now by yourself anyway, or you would have given more than a disparaging dismissive brush off to the points and references previously provided.

    By the way, there is a new admission by a respected journalist (Robert Fisk) that the government’s official conspiracy theory does not, without further explanations, hold water. His statement (in The Independent) and a letter of response follow in turn:

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10854

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10878

  63. leftbehind Says:

    Robert Fisk is the guy they named “Fisking” after, not because he has done such a good job taking apart other people’s arguments point-by-point, but because he’s been such a worthy target of such treatment himself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

    davidm.blogspot.com/2005/02/first-use-of-verb-to-fisk.html

  64. leftbehind Says:

    I see the links are working again.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

  65. shcb Says:

    Knarly,
    You don’t seem to have a good recollection of what transpired with the 911 pilots. I was using their numbers, there is no fuzzy math, the only oddity in the numbers is that the time traveled in the turn is 3 minutes which is close enough to pi to make it hard to discern if they are saying the 5 miles traveled refers to the diameter or circumference of the circle. This was astutely picked up on by one of the 911bloggers, I re-ran the numbers using both scenarios with close to the same results, all well within the capabilities of a civilian plane. Don’t rely on them, do the math yourself. As I said back then, I have no responsibility to ask their opinion of my math, I was using their numbers that is all that matters. If my math is fuzzy, show me where. You don’t want to figure it yourself because if you do you may find they are wrong, and if they are wrong about something this simple, what else? By the way, there was a show on the History Chanel last night that was debunking you guys, I only watched a minute or two as I was flipping to the race, the bit I saw was the debunking of the small circular hole made by the plane. They showed it as an exit hole in the third tier, after the plane had disintegrated, I thought you guys said it was an entrance wound? Where did I get that idea?

  66. knarlyknight Says:

    Leftbehind, re: Fisk – So that’s your reaction, attack whatever you can find to attack about the sheep that steps away from the herd, despite overall impressive credentials. Typical rwnj gut reaction.

    shcb,

    I got three hands.

    On one hand, there is the 911 Commission Report that says Flight 77 took a certain flight path into the Pentagon and there is also recently released flight data that requires huge leaps of faith and highly improbable if not impossible piloting feats to even imagine that there is any consistency with the 911 Commission Report account of the flight path.

    On the other hand, I have you – an anonymous poster to an obscure blog making claims that his fantastic mathematical reasoning for Flight 77 fully supports the official theory about the flight path (whatever that may be) yet refuses to submit his fuzzy math (I think the definition of that is rough reckoning) to any experts for collaboration or correction.

    On the other hand, there are these experienced pilots (many fighter pilot veterans) who say something is seriously wrong with the official story or the flight data they have been provided and that the official story does not stand up to basic scrutiny:

    Robert Balsamo
    4000+ Total Flight Time
    Former:
    Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines

    Glen Stanish
    15,000+ Total Flight Time
    American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental

    Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
    30,000+ Total Flight Time
    Former Pan Am, United
    United States Air Force (ret)
    Over 100 Combat Missions Flown

    John Lear
    Son of Bill Lear
    Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation
    More than 40 years of Flying
    19,000+ Total Flight Time

    Captain Jeff Latas
    USAF (ret)
    Captain – JetBlue Airways

    Ted Muga
    Naval Aviator – Retired Commander, USNR

    Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret)
    Directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter – 101 combat missions
    Alfons Olszewski
    Founder Veterans For Truth
    US Army (ret)
    Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief

    Robin Hordon
    Former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller
    Commercial Pilot

    John Panarelli
    Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski – Capt. AA #11
    11,000+ Total Flight Time
    Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
    Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

    Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
    United States Marine Corps (ret)
    10,000+ Total Flight Time
    303 Combat Missions

    Captain Dan Govatos
    10,000+ Total Flight Time
    Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines
    Director of Operations Training at Polar Air

    George Nelson
    Colonel USAF (Ret.)
    Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic

    Dennis Spear
    Army Aviator (ret)
    7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer

    Captain Joe H. Ferguson
    30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)

    I don’t have any problem supporting these pilots in their request for a proper investigation.
    http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease.html

  67. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    So, what exactly did the the History Channel piece say about the C ring entrance hole? Did they report that:

    A. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF) or the official 9-11 Commission Report

    B. The official “nose cone” theory – The initial explanation offered, that it was the nose cone/fuselage of the 757 aircraft punched all the way from the E-ring wall, to the C-ring wall, to create this exit hole,.

    C. The “circle of energy” concept – Purdue University’s proposed explanation that fuel, airplane material, and momentum from the aircraft created this circular cut out by continuing into the building after the plane had been destroyed.

    D. The shock wave theory first proposed on the National Geographic Channel explaining that secondary explosions from the impact and jet fuel, coupled with the geometry of the inside of the impacted Pentagon, allowed shock waves to cause this circular hole.

    E. The Landing Gear theory that this is what caused hole in the wall, according to Popular Mechanics.

    F. Silence by the American Society of Civil Engineers on the issue except to state that “The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft (91 m) into the structure.”

    G. explosives – there is speculation that the higher level of damage around the hole compared to the preceding sections suggest a shaped charge might have been involved?

    H. something about a missile?

    Whatever conclusion they came to, I hope they did a good job supporting it, so it can be put to rest. If not, it does not reflect well on the history channel to raise such a disputed issue in a prominent manner when obviously other less disputable Pentagon issues would be paramount:
    e.g.
    1. when will all the webcam footages be released and why are they withheld,
    2. why the path of Flight 77 as captured in recently released flight data records contradicts the flight path reported by the 911Commission,
    3. why the hijackers were not on the flight manifest(s),
    4. how in hell could the DNA remains of all the passengers be recovered and identified while the rest of the plane (including much of the titanium engines) were destroyed in a fireball…etc.

    More on The History Channel:

    Here is a listing of a few of the grave problems from an admittedly “sour grapes” review of the History Channel’s show to which you refer:

    The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status…

    The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

    The debunkers’ interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted … a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism.

    The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

    The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined.

    The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

    The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

    The show included a clip of Alex Jones’ appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind – a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

    In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present.

    Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece , maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them… Coburn and the show’s producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story…. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show’s producers.

    The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked.

    Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies.

    The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta’s bombshell testimony about Cheney’s actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, “the airplane coming in to the Pentagon,” and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

    The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones’ scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night , Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered” but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

    The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

    The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

    etc. Full review with links here: http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/history_channel_hit_piece_dirty_tricks_malicious_lies_journalistic_fraud.htm

    More info here:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10831 (don’t miss the first comment, one of many letters to the history channel)

    Also,

    “In a culture of fear, we should expect the rise of new mechanisms of social control to deflect distrust, anxiety, and threat… Our findings suggest that authors use the conspiracy theorist label as (1) a routinized strategy of exclusion; (2) a reframing mechanism that deflects questions or concerns about power, corruption, and motive; and (3) an attack upon the personhood and competence of the questioner. This label becomes dangerous machinery at the transpersonal levels of media and academic discourse, symbolically stripping the claimant of the status of reasonable interlocutor – often to avoid the need to account for one’s own action or speech. We argue that this and similar mechanisms simultaneously control the flow of information and symbolically demobilize certain voices and issues in public discourse…Variants of the label conspiracy theorist become dangerous. The mechanism allows those who use it to sidestep sound scholarly and journalistic practice, avoiding the examination of evidence, often in favor of one of the most important errors in logic and rhetoric – the ad hominem attack. [italics added]”

    Can you say the History Channel?

  68. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    So, what exactly did the History Channel say about the C ring entrance hole? Did they report that:

    A. No explanation is offered for this hole in the Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.4 Mb PDF) or the official 9-11 Commission Report

    B. The official “nose cone” theory – The initial explanation offered, that it was the nose cone/fuselage of the 757 aircraft punched all the way from the E-ring wall, to the C-ring wall, to create this exit hole,.

    C. The “circle of energy” concept – Purdue University’s proposed explanation that fuel, airplane material, and momentum from the aircraft created this circular cut out by continuing into the building after the plane had been destroyed.

    D. The shock wave theory first proposed on the National Geographic Channel explaining that secondary explosions from the impact and jet fuel, coupled with the geometry of the inside of the impacted Pentagon, allowed shock waves to cause this circular hole.

    E. The Landing Gear theory that this is what caused hole in the wall, according to Popular Mechanics.

    F. Silence by the American Society of Civil Engineers on the issue except to state that “The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft (91 m) into the structure.”

    G. explosives – there is speculation that the higher level of damage around the hole compared to the preceding sections suggest a shaped charge might have been involved?

    H. something about a missile?

    Whatever conclusion they came to, I hope they did a good job supporting it, so it can be put to rest. If not, it does not reflect well on the history channel to raise such a disputed issue in a prominent manner when obviously other less disputable Pentagon issues would be paramount:
    e.g.
    1. when will all the webcam footages be released and why are they withheld,
    2. why the path of Flight 77 as captured in recently released flight data records contradicts the flight path reported by the 911Commission,
    3. why the hijackers were not on the flight manifest(s),
    4. how in hell could the DNA remains of all the passengers be recovered and identified while the rest of the plane (including much of the titanium engines) were destroyed in a fireball…etc.

    More on The History Channel:

    Here is a listing of a few of the grave problems from an admittedly “sour grapes” review of the History Channel’s show to which you refer:

    The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status…

    The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

    The debunkers’ interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted … a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism.

    The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

    The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined.

    The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

    The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

    The show included a clip of Alex Jones’ appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind – a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

    In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present.

    Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece , maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them… Coburn and the show’s producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story…. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show’s producers.

    The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked.

    Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites…

    The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta’s bombshell testimony about Cheney’s actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, “the airplane coming in to the Pentagon,” and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

    The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones’ scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night , Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered” but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

    The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

    The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

    etc. Full review with links here: www infowars com/articles/sept11/history_channel_hit_piece_dirty_tricks_malicious_lies_journalistic_fraud.htm (just add the dots after “www” and “infowars”)

    More info here:
    www 911blogger com/node/10831 (don’t miss the first comment, one of many letters to the history channel)

    Also,

    “In a culture of fear, we should expect the rise of new mechanisms of social control to deflect distrust, anxiety, and threat… Our findings suggest that authors use the conspiracy theorist label as (1) a routinized strategy of exclusion; (2) a reframing mechanism that deflects questions or concerns about power, corruption, and motive; and (3) an attack upon the personhood and competence of the questioner. This label becomes dangerous machinery at the transpersonal levels of media and academic discourse, symbolically stripping the claimant of the status of reasonable interlocutor – often to avoid the need to account for one’s own action or speech. We argue that this and similar mechanisms simultaneously control the flow of information and symbolically demobilize certain voices and issues in public discourse…Variants of the label conspiracy theorist become dangerous. The mechanism allows those who use it to sidestep sound scholarly and journalistic practice, avoiding the examination of evidence, often in favor of one of the most important errors in logic and rhetoric – the ad hominem attack. [italics added]”

    Can you say the History Channel?

  69. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb:
    re: Scott Forbes – a while ago you raised some questions about a reference to this person. I liked your criticism of the link and lack of back-up information, and will look further to see if this can come to light. For now, here is a tiny bit of more background: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8&NR=1

    shcb – why is it that you steadfastly defend something while more and more very, very smart people are questioning the government’s fairy tale that Osama bin Laden and his arab hijacker henchmen were solely responsible for 911, people like:

    Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement, in 1999, presented by President William J. Clinton. The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced in 1998 that it will permanently archive Dr. Margulis’ papers. President of Sigma Xi, the scientific research society, from 2005 – 2006. Recipient of the Proctor Prize for scientific achievement in 1999 from Sigma Xi. Prior to moving to the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Margulis was a faculty member at …etc.

    Dr. Margulis has made this statement:

    “The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations. I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research…

    Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

    I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

    Full C.V. and statement here:

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.
    com/professors.html#Margulis

  70. shcb Says:

    Knarly,
    Way to long and too long a post to read all of it now, maybe later. If you want to submit my numbers to the pilots site, feel free.

    For your cutting and pasting pleasure

    This is what I copied from their site:

    [The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That’s 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots] these numbers work no problem here.
    [Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes]

    This was my response

    [See the problem? He traveled 33 miles in 5 minutes, and then went 5 miles in 3 without changing speed? So do the math he would be traveling about 120 MPH to travel 5 miles in 3 minutes. The takeoff speed of the 757 is 160 mph so I would think stall speed would be in the 120 range. 5 miles in 330 degrees is about a 7/8 mile radius plus the mile down. So we put this all into our nifty aircraft turn calculator and we get a 25 degree turn angle at 1.1 g’s not all that radical (this was at 180 mph so our inexperienced pilot can keep control of the plane. At 400 mph this would require a 70 degree turn at almost 3 g’s, still possible but not probable. The 400mph turn would also only take 41.8 seconds (360deg).]

    This was my second calculation with the plane making a larger turn

    [One of the guys at your other blog made the comment that the path of the plane made a much larger circle so the speed was higher, The article specifically said 5 miles, but I can see how they may have been meant the target was 5 miles away, 5 mile diameter, so I ran the numbers again with the plane maintaining 400mph through the turn. The numbers are a lot closer, 2.5 minutes to complete the turn plus the 5000 foot drop would bring it to about 3 minutes. The turn angle of the plane would increase to 38 deg instead of the 25 deg and the g’s would increase to 1.3 from 1.1. The calculator says a civilian craft should not exceed 70 degrees banking so the 38 is well within that range of a controllable flight, the dive angle would also be less. And remember Tex Johnson rolled a 707 twice in 1955 without incident in a 1 g barrel roll so the plane can take it. Most roller coasters generate 3-4 g’s with a couple in the 5-6 range. It wouldn’t have been a fun ride, but it is certainly possible. Even in a negative g situation you don’t start to “red out” until something over 2 g’s so this is either a tight, slow turn or a large fast turn either would be conceivable and fit the 5 miles and 3 minutes parameters.]

    These pilots may be right that an inexperienced pilot can’t make that turn that is where their experience would be helpful, but to say it is an impossible turn doesn’t fit their numbers. And if they say an inexperienced pilot can’t make that turn, I guess we are off to the simulator with a handful of amatures. Remember to, these guys consider a crashed plane a failure, to our enemies it was a success.

    I watched so little of the history channel show I can’t comment, if I get a chance to see it later, I’ll let you know. I saved your comments so I can look back then. Can you remind me who Scott Forbes is? I remember the name and us talking about him, I just don’t remember who he is.

  71. shcb Says:

    he was the IT guy who reported the power outage, I remember now. good luck on your research. Thanks for at least looking into some of these claims your guys are making.

  72. knarlyknight Says:

    For your research here is some more commentary about the History Channel buffoonery:

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/10948

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.