JOhn E keeps posting articles about McCains connections to lobbyists but just ignores that Obama has his own connections to lobbyists and uis lying about not taking their money. he takes it and they call it bundling. It is the same thing. here you go John E. Not all of us are as naive as you.
Obama’s registered lobbyist bundlers
By Artificial Intelligence on January 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM in Uncategorized
“While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital,” Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.
Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama “gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists,” Morain wrote.
Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama’s fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign—in addition to their own personal contributions.
Frank M. Clark is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,100 to Obama for America.
Scott Blake Harris is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 15, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 to Obama for America.
Allan J. Katz is a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt in Tallahassee, Florida. Katz is a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and Tallahassee City Commissioner. As an Obama bundler, Katz raised $200,000+ with Marilyn Katz of MK Communications (who personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America on January 21, 2007).
Robert S. Litt is a partner at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold & Porter, a regulatory and public affairs firm which represents multiple clients in a variety of industries. As an Obama bundler, Litt raised unknown amount of money. FEC records show that Litt personally contributed $2,300 on February 26, 2007 and $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America.
Thomas J. Perrelli is managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Perrelli personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007 and $200 on March 5, 2007 and $2,300 on March 21, 2007 to Obama for America.
Thomas A. Reed is Of Counsel at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP K&L Gates), which represents multiple industries and multiple clients. As an Obama bundler, Reed raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Reed contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.
Paul N. Roth is a partner at the New York firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, which represents financial institutions, investments, securities, including Cerberus Capital Partners. As an Obama bundler, Roth raised at least $50,000. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Roth personally contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.
Alan D. Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures in Massachusetts represents Health Services/HMOs. As an Obama bundler, Solomont raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Solomont personally contributed $2,100 on January 26, 2007; $2,500 on March 30, 2007 (Rebecca Solomont at the same address made two $2,300 contributions on the same day); and $2,300 on March 30, 2007 to Obama for America.
Tom E. Wheeler is managing director of Core Capital Partners, a private equity fund in Washington, D.C. As an Obama bundler, Wheeler raised $100,000+. FEC records show that Wheeler personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007; $2,500 on May 2, 2007 and an additional $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America. (Note: another $2,300 was added then removed also on May 2, 2007.)
UPDATE: Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.
“Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.
“The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, ‘[Exelon] is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.’”

One of the key arguments in Mr.Obama’s speech is that he has better judgment on issues. Well, I am finding more and more on this topic.
a) He gave a speech saying no to war but when it did mattered like his senate campaign he was for war. It’s easy to vote no when you don’t have responsibilities and facts in front of you.
b) He was for NAFTA when he ran for senate now he wants to re-negotiate it.
c) One of the biggest possessions an average person has is his/her house. It’s where you raise your family and watch your kids grow. In Mr. Obama’s case the purchase was subsidized by Mr.Rezko’s and his wife and also got help purchasing the adjacent property next to it. Talk about judgment, he knew Mr.Rezko was under federal investigation when this happened.
d) He did took money from lobbyist when he ran for senate
e) His association to the Trinity church
All these are coming out this late because I don’t think he was tested on his campaign for his senate seat. The original candidate dropped out due to some personnel issues, and then they have to bring in another candidate from out of state at the last minute. If the Rep’s can derail a decorated veteran and less liberal than Mr. Obama, personally I think he has no shot in November as more and more things comes out.
States which have not voted yet please do the right thing.

“Dr. Burnham and his colleagues are confident that the data presented in the 2004 and 2006 are accurate, and they fully stand by the conclusions of their research,” according to a November 27 statement from the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “The findings of independent surveys of Iraqis conducted by the United Nations in March 2005, by the BBC in March 2007, and by the British polling firm ORB in September 2007 support the conclusions of the Hopkins mortality studies.”

And I liked the ending:

Today, the journal’s editor tacitly concedes discomfort with the Iraqi death estimates. “Anything [the authors] can do to strengthen the credibility of the Lancet paper,” Horton told NJ, “would be very welcome.” If clear evidence of misconduct is presented to The Lancet, “we would be happy to go ask the authors and the institution for an official inquiry, and we would then abide by the conclusion of that inquiry.”

(Note that to date clear evidence of misconduct apparently has not been presented to the Lancet.)

In any event, your new article gives a much fairer picture than the (mentally) unbalanced Fox news article you previously provided, dontcha think?

So if we assume the Lancet II was very wrong , that suggests say about 200,000 dead Iraqis due to the American invasion between 2003 and 2006. That is a conservative estimate supported by the latest study:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL10731034
FYI, it is now 2008 and last time I checked violent deaths, and deaths due to insufficient medical resources, in Iraq are still horrifically high. Yep, that’s one heckuva job.

Let’s see, 200,000 dead out of Iraq’s 24 million pre-invasion population works out to eight percent of the population being wiped out in three years. Yikes! Probably nearly everyone in Iraq knows at least three people who died needlessly due to the invasion and continued occupation. Yep, that’s one heckuva job.

And by the way, from wiki:
“As of November 4, 2006, the UNHCR estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 1.6 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.[36] A May 25, 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted refugee status in the United States.”

Anyway, we’re going way off topic so I’ll leave you to have the last word on this thread, shcb.

here’s one-

• Suspicious cluster. Lafta’s team reported 24 car bomb deaths in early July, as well as one nonviolent death, in “Cluster 33″ in Baghdad. The authors do not say where the cluster was, but the only major car bomb in the city during that period, according to Iraq Body Count’s database, was in Sadr City. It was detonated in a marketplace on July 1, likely by Al Qaeda, and killed at least 60 people, according to press reports.
The authors should not have included the July data in their report because the survey was scheduled to end on June 30, according to Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at the University of Louvain in Belgium. Because of the study’s methodology, those 24 deaths ultimately added 48,000 to the national death toll and tripled the authors’ estimate for total car bomb deaths to 76,000. That figure is 15 times the 5,046 car bomb killings that Iraq Body Count recorded up to August 2006.
According to a data table reviewed by Spagat and Kane, the team recorded the violent deaths as taking place in early July and did not explain why they failed to see death certificates for any of the 24 victims. The surveyors did remember, however, to ask for the death certificate of the one person who had died peacefully in that cluster.

The Cluster 33 data is curious for other reasons as well. The 24 Iraqis who died violently were neatly divided among 18 houses — 12 houses reported one death, and six houses reported two deaths, according to the authors’ data. This means, Spagat said, that the survey team found a line of 40 households that neatly shared almost half of the deaths suffered when a marketplace bomb exploded among a crowd of people drawn from throughout the broader neighborhood.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

I stopped at the second article because it showed a more balanced view of both studies and demonstrated, point by point, how the two surveys compared. At that point ist was blatantly obvious, to all but the most myopic rwnj mole like creatures, that the Fox news article was UNFAIR and UNBALANCE. And I mean mentally unbalanced.

In comparing the analysis, the Fox article appears to be written for people of reasoning skills below that of a kindergarten student.

If you have a better side by side comparison, by all means present it, because your previous response has no substance (unless you call your appeal to believe what the kindergarten teacher says because she is authoritative and she says it is so “substance”) and it reeks of sour grapes and a juvenile temperament.

I stand corrected. The Lancet study is above reproach, I mean who could argue with Bob’s Blog and Barbeque Shack.

Unfortunately, that is not my agenda. I am willing to read more than one or two half-facts in order to form my own opinion. So after reading the Fox article, I found another source and skimmed most of it.

I find their comparison of the two studies far more compelling, as a partial list of what it covers aptly demonstrates:

Issue one: the bias (or potential bias) of both studies.

2. The key difference between the two studies: the Lancet study compared death rates before the invasion to that occuring after the invasion (e.g. if a newborn dies because medical equipment was looted from a hospital during the fighting, that is counted as a death) and required death certificates to back uup the claim, the other study only looked at violence related deaths and did not require death certificates to be provided.

3. Methodology:

3a. Superficially at least, both the Hopkins team and the new study followed the same survey methods: interviewing a random sample of households drawn from randomly selected “clusters” of houses around the country, and interviewing the head of the household. While the Lancet study required death certificates as confirmation of deaths and their cause, the NEJM study had no such requirement.

AND THE BIGGIE -

3b. However, the Lancet study maintained that random sampling, while the new study did not maintain the most important aspect of such a research project (maintaining the random nature of the sample): “As the authors themselves admit, they did not visit a significant proportion of the original designated clusters: “Of the 1086 originally selected clusters, 115 (10.6%) were not visited because of problems with security,” meaning they were inconveniently situated in Anbar province, Baghdad, and two other areas that were dangerous to visit, (especially for Iraqi government employees from a Shia-controlled ministry.) While such reluctance is understandable–one of those involved was indeed killed during the survey–it also meant that areas with very high death tolls were excluded from the survey.

So much for the new study being better indicator than the Lancet Study, and so much for any claim that Fox is “Fair and Balanced.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01122008.html

here is a piece from Fox news today about the Lancet, Soros study

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

Don’t believe everything you have heard of McCarthy either. Rosen had a guy on last week that has written a book on him and read every page of all the hearings he was involved in, thousands of pages. He said that he could be combative and a bully but he was fair in the hearings always insisting legal representation was present and letting the accused say what ever they wanted. As far as I know he never accused anyone of being a commie that wasn’t.

Communism in the 20th century was a huge threat, absolutely.

However, McCarthyism was a bigger threat to America than the supposed communists McCarthyists were hunting and thankfully it was dealt with swiftly - and shut down hard - before it further corroded the fabric of society.

I’ll address your 4 silly responses first in a random order and then highlight the issues you failed to address.

4. Yes, not only do I check sources but I often look at what the other point of view, opposite spin, or in your confrontational language “what the other side” has to say about something. From that I decide what makes sense. I’ve been lazy of late and relying on you to provide me with the other (usually more right wing) perspective, but I’m going to have to find my own mainstream / right wing references more in future most of your points are ridiculous.

For example about your ridiculousness, your response to #1 (McCarthyism). So what if there were a few people who sympathized with communist ideas in the 1950’s, that was no threat to Western civilization as we know it. But McCarthy did tremendous damage in trying to root them out and if he was allowed to continue he could have made your whole country look even more like Salem c. 1600 than it did already.

2. . Of course you are not endorsing the Lancet study, it is based on sound scientific principles, internationally accepted sampling methods, and administered by professionals.

3. Are you saying there are no Swedes in the middle east, or that somehow the Swedes are immune from being killed in shock and awe bombing like we witnessed in Baghdad or Fallujah if they happened to be there?

Now, what did you try to ignore?

1. you got terrifying police powers, wiretaps and sophisticated surveillance techniques, secret prisons, and etc., now, since 911, that even Putin would find highly satisfactory.

2. “war on extremism”, which makes more sense but if so should be applied to a whole lot of your own so called Christians and a few Zionists too who are all just as extremist or more so than any Muslim.

3. Shit, okay, one more time: … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe we had to “kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem” because… . What is painful to me is being lied to by people who are supposed to looking after our best interests, and being lied to in ways that end up making their “business” associates, or themselves, immensely wealthy at the expense of the people (in your case, “We the People”) who they are supposed to be serving. Serving, not raping.

4. If Bush had said all that, well then, I’d have said to myself, Now THAT is a Commander in Chief, …

5. As it is, it appears that criminals are in charge of Iraqi operations, at least when you look at where the $ Billions of money goes, so you, my dear US taxpayer are being robbed blind. And me, what pisses me off is how much I’ve been lied to …

6. your 9/11 comments. “Hoops” you say? … the scientific based theories require … a long, labourious investigative process … shoestring budgets, and some theories … [rejected as] …part of a scientific investigative process, … Molten pools of steel does not fit with airplane crashes, kerosene/office fires and building collapses, so a smart person looks to see what does fit.

7. Compare that to the millions of dollars spent on 911 Commission and NIST reports and expensive press releases to rationalize and explain THEIR FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS… ya’ll could stroll … in your pathetic ignorance without even realizing you are living in world of make believe. And liars.

So shcb, instead of juvenile and transparent tactics like trying to slander me for not checking sources, why don’t you try taking a fresh look at a different perspective? Not because I claim it is 100% correct, as I am sure there are a few inaccuracies in the following article, but – because it might open your mind enough to let some of the bullshit out.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2818.shtml

I’m not endorsing the Lancet study, the Lancet study is about people who have been killed already, a fact, I’m talking about people who may be killed in the future, a guess.

I call them Arabs because that is who they are, not a Swede amongst them.

Have you ever checked the validity or one of your sources? For instance if they say the Downing street memo says… have you went to the text of that document and read a page or two in either direction of the quote?

Never mind, you don’t need new McCarthy hearings because you got terrifying police powers, wiretaps and sophisticated surveillance techniques, secret prisons, and etc., now, since 911, that even Putin would find highly satisfactory.

And you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe you had to “kill millions of Arabs” (by the way, you can also call them people in case you did not know that, they have lots of funny characteristics just like us). At least you finally agree with the Lancet study and recognize the true cost of this war in terms of lives lost.

Jeez, now I have to start again. … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe you had to “kill millions of Arabs” to fix this problem (what problem, do you mean your “war on terrorism” -nonsense, terrorism is a tactic best dealt with by law enforcement and the phrase does not compute- or your war on Islamofascists” - another utterly nonsensical phrase, let’s try “war on extremism”, which makes more sense but if so should be applied to a whole lot of your own so called Christians and a few Zionists too who are all just as extremist or more so than any Muslim.

Shit, okay, one more time: … you are wrong, to say it is too painful to believe we had to “kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem” because really, I got enough things in my own life to think about and normally don’t pay very much attention to wars, famines or even genocides like Rwanda. What is painful to me is being lied to by people who are supposed to looking after our best interests, and being lied to in ways that end up making their “business” associates, or themselves, immensely wealthy at the expense of the people (in your case, “We the People”) who they are supposed to be serving. Serving, not raping.

Look, if Bush went on TV in 2000 and said, “We’re in deep shit. The world is running out of oil and we need to secure some supplies fast to keep our Western civilization as we know it from suffering greatly or even falling apart. It looks like the Chinese and Russians are getting the Iraqi oil industry under their control so we’re going to use America’s overwhelming military might to take out Saddam (before he starts selling Iraqi oil in something other than US dollars), and it is going to be ugly over there with a lot of Iraqi deaths, but we can do it quickly and then we can allow Western international oil companies to secure Iraqi oil for world markets (i.e. US), and place a strong American military presence in the middle east to keep watch over this situation for as long as needed and to take care of any resistance fighters from that region.” - If Bush had said all that, well then, I’d have said to myself, Now THAT is a Commander in Chief, and while I hate the fact that a lot of people are going to die and I bet there might be less risky ways to solve the Western energy/strategic crises, the POTUS has far better information about these things than I do and he’s being honest with the people and if we need to engage in some resource wars, well, thank God (sic) that we (the USA) has the military to get the job done. That would have been scary, but a part of me (the dark evil part) would have approved.

As it is, it appears that criminals are in charge of Iraqi operations, at least when you look at where the $ Billions of money goes, so you, my dear US taxpayer are being robbed blind. And me, what pisses me off is how much I’ve been lied to by the psychopathic mobsters.

Now, back to your 9/11 comments. “Hoops” you say?
It might look like the scientific based theories require some hoop jumping. That is because it has been a long, labourious investigative process by people working on shoestring budgets, and some theories (loonies or counterintel) had to get tossed aside or radically refined. That’s part of a scientific investigative process, you whittle away the things that don’t fit until you get something that does. Molten pools of steel (for once thging) does not fit with airplane crashes, kerosene/office fires and building collapses, so a smart person looks to see what does fit.

Compare that to the millions of dollars spent on 911 Commission and NIST reports and expensive press releases to rationalize and explain THEIR FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS; well, with that kind of money no wonder they could make huge hoops so big that ya’ll could stroll through them together in your pathetic ignorance without even realizing you are living in world of make believe. And liars.

I guess I just don’t agree with you that a group of say 20 or 30 men couldn’t have pulled this off. This is classic small unit and guerrilla warfare. They used our stuff, lived among us gathering intel for some time before the attack. They obviously had help from others in and out of this country. They blended into the fabric of our society. They didn’t break laws or raise suspicions much, they made a couple mistakes but got buy with it. One would imagine they carried out numerous tests to see what kind of weapon would be allowed on the plane. They picked a time of year when there were least likely to be delays, after the vacation rush but before winter weather set in. They did their homework, they trained, they probably were never with more than two or three or each other at one time, they probably didn’t communicate with cell phones much, and once the order to attack was given by Bin Laden they had no communication with him.

You need to study guerrilla warfare more. It has its limitations and its attributes. This type of operation is perfect for the tactic. Which gets to my point that if you ignore the obvious… You are jumping through all these hoops because reality is just too painful. You don’t want to think you may have to kill millions of Arabs to fix this problem so it is just easier to impeach a couple guys, but if you don’t fix the problem, it will still exist after you impeach these guys and the next and the next… but you’ll feel better and that is really what is important.

Pot, meet kettle. Everything you said applies 100% to your silly conspiracy theory (spit out by your News media literally on the day of the attack) which relies on unbelievable luck by the conspirators and disgraceful performances by (otherwise honorable) pilots (some ex combat vets), utter failure of the trillion dollar NORAD defense structure, a suspension of basic physics in the collapse of the buildings, etc.

I notice you did not attempt or have the courtesy to answer any of Enk’s or my questions. Your subsequent comments are classic misinformation sleaze I’d expect from Fox news perhaps but not you.

$2.5 million in unclaimed put options on United / AA stock with no official explanation provided… I am not saying that is a smoking gun but rather that it is just one more anomaly (and clue not followed) out of many hundreds that have gone uninvestigated or for which we’ve been given silly explanations.

“cast of thousands” ? You mean the cast of thousands who were duped by folllowing orders or instructions that seemed genuine (except for the orders that the officer questioned Cheney about, whilst flight 77 was tracked right into the Pentagon.)

Orders like performing “fireproofing upgrades” specific to the floors where collapse initiation took place. *If* that was how Thermate made it into the buildings do you think that most of the people carrying “fireproofing” materials up to those floors knew that their activity was a cover for setting charges? Did the 911 commission or NIST look into the strange coincidence of floors upgraded aligning with floors failing?

Of course not, both their orders were to investigate security failures that enabled Arabs to crash planes into buildings to make them collapse, and they constructed a “theory” that would fit the foregone conclusion. Well, the foregone conclusion may have been much, much less than 100% correct. And their “theory” is full of holes.

Saying that alternative theories must involve a cast of thousands is a lot like saying there were a cast of thousands conspiring to establish a base of American military control in Iraq. The sad fact is that your troops were duped, just like so many other Americans, into believing in imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Your troops could be relied upon to follow orders and were not part of a “conspiracy” to set up permanent, huge, military bases in Iraq. (Kinda like construction workers could be relied upon to carry boxes of “fireproofing” materials up to the 90th floor.

Here’s a little more about the flawed attempt to set up an explanation that would put to rest further enquiries into what really happened on 9/11:

9/11 Commissioners Kean and Hamilton NYT January 2, 2008 Op-Ed Article: “Stonewalled by the C.I.A.”

by Elizabeth Woodworth, January 11, 2008.

On January 2, 2008, the New York Times carried an op-ed article entitled “Stonewalled by the C.I.A.” by 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton…

It is difficult to understand why there has been so little follow-up to Kean and Hamilton’s emphatic charges that the CIA wilfully obstructed their investigation.

The tapes in question were destroyed in 2005, long after the Commission had collected its evidence in 2003 and early 2004.

This revelation constitutes a new and highly visible public schism between the Chairs of the 9/11 Commission and the CIA……”What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one [of] the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”

In their 2006 book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission,” Kean and Hamilton went further, reporting that their greatest difficulty lay in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody….who were the only possible source for inside information about the plot.” They were “receiving information thirdhand” through a CIA “project manager” who a…

According to constitutional law attorney Glenn Greenwald, author of “How Would a Patriot Act?” (2006): “It’s hard to imagine a more serious scandal than this….It is a confirmed fact that Alberto Gonzales and David Addington — the top legal representatives of George Bush and Dick Cheney, respectively — participated in discussions as to whether those videotapes should be destroyed. The White House refuses to disclose what these top officials said in those meetings. Did they instruct that the videos should be destroyed, or fail to oppose their destruction? The NYT previously quoted one ‘senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter [who] said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes.’”

…

The bottom line is that first the Commission was limited to investigating the above presupposition, and then it was denied access to the very sources that it had been charged to investigate. The whole inquiry now appears to have been a circular, self-defeating, window-dressing exercise.

It is clear that both the CIA and the White House have foiled a full investigation into an event that has, in our resulting ignorance, profoundly damaged … We have all been stonewalled.

The need for a new and thoroughly independent inquiry should now be abundantly clear. This time the scope of the inquiry should be expanded to include not only al-Qaeda, which was immediately named and then studied to the exclusion of all else, but all public offices that have obstructed our knowledge of what happened on that horrendous world-changing day.

Elizabeth Woodworth

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13336

I just don’t have the time to go through all your points and all the points to come, it is just rehashing stuff we’ve been over a million times. The pattern I see in all your stuff is there is always one little detail that doesn’t fit, but that little piece is vital for the whole thing to work, and then you pile on a bunch of these things, none of which is completely true or possible. Either that or one major item is so dependent on another that is totally implausible that the first is rendered impossible by the second… it just gets too convoluted. I mean, for God’s sake we’re back to the stock brokers and the cast of thousands.

The six planes. There were reports right after 911 of two other flights that had Arab men in the boarding areas that briefly got very agitated when they found out their flights were being cancelled. Maybe they were legitimate businessmen that were upset they weren’t going to make it to a meeting, but it would seem plausible there were more than 4 flights targeted. They only needed one to reach it’s target for the mission to be a success, they got 3, kind of like firing a pattern of torpedoes, you know right off the bat they aren’t all going to hit the ship.

The other hijackers simply blended into the crowd and left the airport. Provided there were more than the 20 we know about.

shcb, it is you who has no credibility. Point by point:

1.
“war games do not happen that often”. On every site I read when I was looking into this, and most were on your side, they said these were annual exercises. They happen often enough they have names and acronyms.

Annual excercises are not frequent events. Events that happen a lot are things like refuelling fighter jets, backing up computer systems, or you wiping your drool off your shirt. Here are some other things that happen often enough to have names and acronyms: “The 19th Century”, “Y2K”, “The Olympics” etc. Those are not frequent events, yet they have names and acronyms. You lose credibility with your first words.