Moron Evidence

Here's another classic post at 9-11 Blogger with "All Evidence, No Theories".

Of course, what the blogger really means is that he's got "all questions, no evidence". And what questions! I mean, this is Loose Change I stuff:

How does a 757 with a wingspan of 125 feet fit into a 16 by 20 foot initial impact hole? Why didn’t any of the Pentagon’s five antiaircraft batteries shoot the plane down? One large piece of evidence that was found was covered in blue tarp and hauled away into obscurity!

Why the apparent "STAND DOWN" by the FAA, NORAD, and NMCC on 9/11? NORAD had routinely intercepted planes 67 times earlier that year within 20 minutes each time and NEVER had a failure like they did on 9/11, nor after 9/11.

Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses. What a ludicrous theory! 1. Steel melts at 2750°F. 2. The steel in the Towers was certified by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. to withstand 2000°F for 6 hours! 3. Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of 1800°F in a special combustion chamber. Theories that claim the steel melted from the jet fuel fire violate the laws of physics! Also, steel frame buildings have NEVER collapsed due to fires!

As pathetic and amateurish this list is, the more pathetic thing is that David Ray Griffin, the "high priest" of 9-11 Denial, would probably come up nothing better.

About That FBI Poster

The Deniers like to make a big deal out of the fact that the FBI's most wanted poster for Osama Bin Laden doesn't mention his involvement in the 9-11 attacks, but instead notes the 1998 embassy bombings. But... get the note at the bottom regarding rewards for his capture:

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

Kevin Barrett: Artists, Not Scientists Best Equipped to Study WTC Collapse

I haven't watched the whole thing, but this clip from my new favorite nutter left me shaking my head. From 17:30 in: Scientists aren't necessarily the best people to look at this footage and understand what they are seeing. Why? Because many scientists, especially engineers tend to be left hemisphere people. They're linear thinkers, they are very very good at following a linear path of logic, but it terms of looking at a picture and understand what they are seeing, that is a right brain and that is actually a function that artists are better at than scientists. For that reason, one would expect that engineers, subject to cognitive dissonance that we are all subject to, would in examining this event be very likely to fall into a linear track of thought that would be essentially trying to show that it could have happened the way the government said it did.

Update by Pat: If the video doesn't work, you can see it here.

Project Censored Looks Into the Crystal Ball

And comes up with the top "censored" stories of 2007.

Yep, 2007. Amazing how they can tell already that these stories are going to be the top censored stories of 2007; must be because they got some coverage in 2006 and aren't going to be covered much next year.

Given that the #2 story is by disgraced journalist Jason Leopold, best known last year for his "breaking" story that Karl Rove was about to be indicted for his role in Plamegate (which indictment was never handed down), one assumes that the rest of these stories are largely fraudulent. Sure enough at #18, we see that Steven Jones comes in for a mention:

Research into the events of September 11 by Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.”

Of course, the notion that 9-11 kooks were "censored" by the media in 2006 (let alone 2007) is ridiculous. They got extensive coverage in Time, US News & World Report, Vanity Fair, and on Fox News, among many other outlets.

And of course, Project Censored gets a lot of the details wrong:

In debunking the official explanation of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, Jones cites the complete, rapid, and symmetrical collapse of the buildings; the horizontal explosions (squibs) evidenced in films of the collapses; the fact that the antenna dropped first in the North Tower, suggesting the use of explosives in the core columns; and the large pools of molten metal observed in the basement areas of both towers.

Jones does not posit "explosives"; he claims thermite or thermate, both of which are incendiaries, not explosives. And they bring in Jones' former membership in the "Scholars", apparently unaware that he has been booted from that august fellowship.

More On "Moron" Karl Schwarz

Pat beat me to the 9/11 Blogger article, but it appears Karl is up to more than just that. He may have been left out of the most recent remix of Loose Change, but he is busy writing an assortment of weird essays, running for President, and running his assortment of businesses.

Interestingly enough, he still claims to be CEO of Patmos Nanotechnology, which appears to be expanding quite nicely.

Their LiftPort facility is 15,000 square feet and will make mid-grade multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Our facility that will be under construction very soon is 300,000 square feet and a Phase II plant of over 2,000,000 square feet is on the design boards. We do not make mid-grade, we make maximum purity.

We are making an announcement in 2-4 weeks that will rock some worlds and break some hearts of some of our competitors.

I can hear many of you going boo-hoo for Halliburton, not!

Unfortunately, they still have been too busy to hire someone to finish filling out the template on their website.

One of his previous companies, I-Net Security has been dropped from his resume. But never fear! He is now the CEO of The Sassenach Capital Trust, LLC, another company for which I can find no reference other than on his website. Oddly enough, I did finally find a reference for Patmos Nanotech on Hoover's. It is not listed as a multi-billion dollar technology company though, but a "junior college", with 7 employees and $300,000 in revenue. It is also still listed as a PO Box in Alpharetta, Georgia

Saddam Hussein Debunks Jim Fetzer

Uncle Fetzer argues:

Another blunder was noted by a Muslim member of S9/11T. The last words of the "hijackers" on the tape are "Allah is great! (Allahu akbar!"). Muhammad Columbo says, "The last words of a Muslim cannot be these! They are used in the call to prayer, or in an attack at war. On the moment of death, a Muslim must confirm that "There is but one God, Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet!" The government's own evidence proves either the tapes or the Muslims are fake.

From the recent news reports on Saddam Hussein's execution:

Hung just before 3am British time, they added that the former Iraqi dictator put up no resistance as he was led to the gallows, and asked for his Koran to be passed on to someone.

Saddam was said to be in a defiant mood on the gallows and refused to wear a hood. He shouted: "God is great."

Of course it will only be a matter of time before they start claiming this is faked too...

Karl Schwarz Returns!

Over at 9-11 Blogger, Karl opines on galvanic corrosion of the World Trade Center towers:

In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.

Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.

Where does Karl get his ability to opine on matters architectural? Well, it turns out that he's not just an expert on nanotube technology with 500 PhD's on staff (or was it 500 patents?), but a true renaissance man:

I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.

Well, thank god for small favors.

"Scholars" Infighting Continues

I got this via e-mail, and I haven't been able to confirm it elsewhere yet, but I have no reason to believe it is not valid. I apologize for the length, but it is hard to understand if you don't read the whole thing. There is actually more, as he adds a bunch of other e-mails to the bottom.

And they wonder why we think they are nuts...

All,

The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. It looks like a nice example of the lack of scruples to which I drew attention in my most recent message to the membership. I find this quite distressing.

Alex Floum continues to abuse his position as a former member of Scholars by distributing contrived and misleading characterizations of the issues. To hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars. Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.

1) As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who has acted on behalf of thesociety to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11, I alone remainas a member of the society, which former members are attempting to control.

2) The extant Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the rightful owner of the web site,the journal, and the forum as well as their contents, where, in some cases, such as copyrighted articles, that ownership may be shared with the authors.

3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents, who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.

4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society's sites and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.

5) Theft of property is not an appropriate remedy for internal disputes overcontrol and content of the society's website and other properties; and thieveshave no grounds to complain about my seeking appropriate legal remedies as the founder of the society on behalf of the society as its sole remaining officer.

6) Former members of the society have no right to determine its future. It is as if a gang of bank employees robbed a bank as they quit or were fired from their jobs, then complained that that the bank manager was not playing fair,because he called the police as they tried to make their escape out the door.

7) Steve Jones has objected to open discussion of possible explanations of the destruction of the Twin Towers other than his preferred thermite/thermate idea,yet the adequacy of his approch can only be assessed in comparison with the explanatory power of the available alternatives, such as mini-nukes, directed energy or HAARP weaonry, which is the only way in which science can progress.

8) Having now siezed control of our web site, they have made it impossible tobring current information to the members of the society. This includes the process of updating our membership, which has taken longer to complete thannormal in the wake of recent events. That process has now been frozen.

I am taking whatever steps I can to insure that control of the web site is returned to the society and whatever other measures must be pursued in order to deal with this rogue group. In the meanwhile, you are entitled to know forthcoming events
of interest as well as what's going on behind the scenes. Since I cannot have them posted on the web site, which they control, I append the list of forthcoming events. The most interesting for many members maybe that I have invited Steve Jones to appear on my program on 2 January 2007 to discuss and debate his thermite/thermate hypothesis with Judy and Morgan:

2 January 2007Interview: Steve Jones, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been invited to discuss 9/11 with Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo"3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

This appears to be especially imporant insofar as Steve has admitted ina recent email, "One cannot rule out the use of thermite or superthermite cutters for the WTC just because it has not been used before for demolition" and that a patent for this process requires placing devices "on either side of the steel". I have included the original email, along with a few replies to Alex Floum, below, preceding the announcement of our forthcoming events.

Please know that I made repeated past proposals to this rogue faction toresolve these matters informally, including giving them the journal andthe forum, where they need only create their own web site to bring into existence a society of their own. I offered them the opportunity to show that posting by committee--one of their primary desiderata--works better than having a single site manager. They never responded to my invitation.

Moreover, I have offered Steve Jones many platforms to present and defend his research on thermite/thermate, including earlier appearances on radio talk shows, encouraging him to speak at The National Press Club, inviting him to chair a panel at the forthcoming Scholars' conference in Madison, and appointing him a member of my team for The National 9/11 Debate. He has now declined all of these invitations. The proper way to prevail in scientific research with logic and evidence, not political power plays.

Everyone needs to appreciate that Scholars is a relatively young society and that growing pains are normal and to be expected. That I have been the manager of the web site should not be news to anyone, any more than that Steve has managed the journal. With our new steering committee ofKevin Barrett, Richard Curtis, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood, I am in the process of effecting a transition from an informal structure to a more formal structure, where the society has by-laws and a board
of directors.

I have created an entity, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Inc., as a framework for formalizing this new society. But the by-laws, the board members, and all the rest are the very issues we are attempting to work out, and we intend to submit them to the members of Scholars for their comment and review. The board of directors, for example, will supervise the editors of our journal, the moderators of our forum, and the managers of our website.

They can approve or remove any as they choose, including me, if I were to be retained in the position of managing the society's web site. I have no problem with the creation of another society. If you disagree with the policies and practices of a society, the honorable thing to do is to resign and, if you are so inclined, create a new one of your own. What is going on here, however, is completely different and not at all honorable. It is reminiscent of children playing football, where one of them takes the football and claims it for his own, then passes it off to another when players are closing in, where the new possessor sticks it with a knife so the game becomes impossible. That's what is going on.

I would close by observing that, on 13 December 2006, the attorney for the society I have retained, Jerry S. Leaphart, sent Alex Floum a proposal forbinding arbitration: "I am authorized to indicate that Dr. Fetzer would be willing to enter into a mediation agreement concerning the domain names. I suggest mediation under WIPO as per the rules set forth . . ." Alex Floum did not respond to this proposal, but I reiterate it here. I am willing to abide by the decision of binding arbitration through the professional WIPO society to resolve the issues between us and let us get on with our work.

If any of you would like to express your opinions about their conduct,the members of this rogue group include Alex Floum;Carl Weis, Steve Jones; and Fred Burks. These are the persons who are in in charge now because they control all access to the journal, the forum, and the web site. If you approve of what they are doing, tell them; if not, let them know. The fate of Scholars for 9/11 Truth is at stake.

James H. Fetzer

Founder

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Terrific Discussion of the Molten Metal Issue

Over at Democratic Underground. Pay special attention to the posts by jberryhill, whose qualifications are:

By the way, back when I was a techie, my doctoral work specifically related to the behavior of molten metal solutions and selective precipitation of crystal compounds out of molten metals:


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SPIE.1582...71C

So, okay, it's been a few years since I spent ALL of my time playing around with melting metals.

This post in particular is choice.

I'll tell you something else, you pour a big heap of fuel containing debris like, say, fueled vehicles from a parking garage and a whole lotta office furniture and stuff, into a great big fire pit that has big empty shafts leading to it like, say, subway lines and service tunnels then I don't see why you'd be at all surprised that you'd get some might hot hot spots in that heap for a very long time.

Brolin Pimps 9-11 Mysteries

Hilariously, just after musing about who was responsible for dividing us all:

Conner In Hollywood

I actually tend to agree with many of his comments about the values that Hollywood promotes, although of course I'm not quite as strident about it.

More Evidence for the Star Wars Beam

Put together by our old buddy Spooked.

This picture, for some reason really made me wonder, what happened to the North wall of WTC1?

You know, I do believe some of it collided with WTC 7.

Some Dumb Guy Suggests David Ray Griffin for Nobel Peace Prize

What the heck, after giving it to Le Duc Tho, Rigoberta Menchu, and Yassir Arafat, it's not like it would bring dishonor on the prize. But this did crack me up a bit:

It looks to me as though we'll need a senator or congressperson to endorse the submission, along with documentary support for Ray Grifffin's qualifications.

Jeez, these guys can't read, can they? He links to the Qualified Nominations page, which rather clearly states that the following are also qualified to nominate candidates:

University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;

In other words, Griffin, who's a professor of theology, could nominate himself.

Perfect Soldiers and Lazy Researchers

As I mentioned previously, I have been doing a lot of reading. I just finished Perfect Soldiers by LA Times reporter Terry McDermott. This book, famously, is where 911 Myths got the flight manifests for the hijacked flights.

It is pretty interesting reading, it primarily follows the Hamburg cell, which became the core of the group, including 3 of the 4 pilots. The fourth pilot, Hani Hanjour, although he was described as a marginal pilot, was actually the only one who was a qualified pilot before he joined the plot and joined relatively last minute. With the others the book describes how they lived abroad, became somewhat marginalized from society, attended fundamentalist mosques, became radicalized, went to Afghanistan for training, and eventually became involved in the plot which had been developing for years.

One of the more interesting aspects of this book is the shear amount of work that goes into researching this subject properly. While not a very large book, it is barely over 300 pages with appendices and footnotes, it took over 3 years to complete. Not only did the author work on it, but he credits no less than 5 others assisting him in carrying out original research in 20 different countries on 4 continents.

When one looks at the abundance of writings by 9/11 deniers (David Ray Griffin by himself has written or edited at least 5 different books on the subject) one finds the complete opposite. They have carried out little if any original research. Their writings are almost entirely based on repeating myths from conspiracy websites, excerpting news reports to fit their theory, or rumors (there are missiles at the Pentagon) which are based on absolutely no source at all. Heck, they claim that 7 of the hijackers are still alive, but over 5 years later, not one of the 9/11 denier "researchers" has even bothered to interview one of them. For what would probably be the biggest story of the century, you would think they would be making more of an effort.

Looking for Quotes of the Year

Here's a little audience participation project. We're looking for the best quotes from Deniers and Debunkers. Got any classics? Some examples:

Jason Bermas: "The people are really secondary."
Sofia (of 9-11 Mysteries): "Clunkety clunk."
Judy Woods: The Keebler elves analogy.
Dylan Avery: 2006 is going to be a good year for the Truth.

Please leave some examples in the comments. If you have links, so much the better!

When Kevin Ryan Attacks

Earlier we linked to the excellent series of articles by Manuel Garcia (PhD Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, Princeton). Now Kevin Ryan (BS, Chemistry) has written a piece attacking him. Of course Kevin can hardly be content with discussing the science of the issue, so he must include the paranoid claims of corruption.

With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration’s 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let’s take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.

Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there.(1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don’t exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?

He even goes on to mention Halliburton concentration camps. Do these people realize how bizarre they sound?

Kevin Barrett On the NIST Report

Kevin Barrett is giving Uncle Fetzer a run for his money to be the battiest member of the "Scholars". Well, OK, that may not be the case now that Judy Wood is back, but perhaps he is going for #2. In any case his radio show Saturday was filled with so many idiotic bits, that I may not ever get around to addressing all of them. Here is another part.

A caller asks (apparently the same caller who called in to Jason Bermas) about reviewing the NIST report. Here is Barrett's answer:

We are talking with Clinton in Wisconsin saying we need to deal with the massive… the massively inadequate NIST report. And I was telling Clinton, that report, as I understand, I haven’t read the whole thing I doubt if anyone ever has or will. But basically what it does is it shows, or claims to show what it thinks might have happened as structural steel uh... was supposedly weakens, and begins to bow or bend or buckle inward after it lost its fireproofing from the plane, so they had these diagrams of this alleged inward buckling, and they just say global collapse ensues. But they don’t describe how it ensues.

Alleged inward buckling? If Barrett had actually read the report and paid attention, he would have noticed not just diagrams, but photographs of this buckling.




















































It is amazing what you learn when you read.

Not content with merely screwing this part of Barrett continues lying about the report, claiming it does not explain the collapse.

This whole report, according to people that I trust like Kevin Ryan, the Underwriters Lab guy who was fired, for blowing the whistle on the cover up that was going on with Underwriters. It sounds like what they did was churn out this gigantic pile that nobody can possibly read. That doesn’t even pretend to explain what actually happened. It pretends to explain how there could have been a structural steel failure on one floor. And that hypothesis, according to Kevin Ryan and others is extremely improbable. That is extremely improbable that there could have been this failure on even one floor. Much less the actual event. These towers coming down at roughly free fall speed in an explosive manner, with structural members being blasted upwards and outwards for hundreds of feet in all directions. And pyroclastic flows, which are characteristic only of nuclear explosions and volcanic eruptions blasting outwards as most of the contents of the towers did not come down it was turned into dust in this extremely high energy process. So this NIST report apparently really doesn’t deal with what happened. It deals with kind of an imaginary version of what conceivably could have happened in some alternate reality, on a couple of floors (laughter).

This is a misrepresentation of what the NIST report says though. The report did explain how the collapse began, they just did not go into details on what happened after the collapse began. Once it started the forces were so great it was going to continue. There was no scientific reason to analyze it in detail. This would be like an aircraft crash investigation, they are worried about why a plane crashed, not what exactly happened to the plane after it hit the ground.

In the second hour Barrett even continues with this, asking why NIST didn't study the collapse and propose changes in building codes. The answer to this of course is, they did.

World Trade Center Study Spurs Improvement of Codes
When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report in October 2005 from its technical investigation of the fires and collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, included were 30 recommendations for improving building and occupant safety derived from the findings. On March 24, 2006, the first 19 proposed changes to model building codes (used as templates for codes legislated, implemented and enforced by state and local jurisdictions) based upon and consistent with the NIST WTC recommendations were submitted to the International Code Council (ICC).

I guess they don't teach research and critical reading skills at the University of Wisconsin.

An Email Conversation with Steven Jones

Our buddy LDS Patriot has a series of posts from an RW Cronk on his email correspondence with Steven Jones, formerly of BYU. Quoting from Mr Cronk's initial email:

In my view, this combines some heavy architecture with physics. The missing link that you did not mention in your presentation is item #3 in the above list. The key architectural pieces involved are trusses 1 and 2. The architecture of floors 5 through 7 was unique because they had a transfer system between floors 5 and 7 that included the two trusses that are at the core of the collapse. This system of cantilever girders and trusses was supposed to be a kind of converter of loads between the Con-Edison substation (that WTC 7 was built on top of) and WTC 7 itself. The two buildings had different architectures and so there needed to be a conversion point between the two. The debris impacted and damaged components adjacent to truss #2. If trusses 1 and 2 failed, they would pull the whole line of columns over simultaneously since they were all attached in the middle of that transfer area between floors 5 and 7.

As you can see, Mr Cronk has done his homework. Terrific reading, highly recommended

Kevin Barrett Calls for Trial of United 93 Filmmakers

He complains that Bill O'Reilly threatened his life because he said that Barrett would have been thrown out if he had taught at his alma mater, but he doesn't mind threatening everyone else. Both he and the caller get the name of the movie wrong, but apparently he isn't a big fan of free speech. From last Saturday's radio show:

Chip (caller):Have you all seen the movie flight 93? I saw it for the first time last night.

John Doe: No, I haven’t. I didn’t want to watch it because to me it seemed like war propaganda.

Chip: Well I wanted to get y’alls expert opinion on it, but I guess I can’t.

Barrett: I was going to picket it, but I ended up getting chased out of the theater, nearly arrested with my son.

Chip: (unintelligible) picket it…

Barrett: Well, we were trying to point out that as John said it was hate propaganda, anti-Muslim hate propaganda. The same kind of stuff that Dr. Goebbels turned out against the Jews to rile up the German people into persecuting the local religious minority and going out an launching criminal wars of aggression. That’s what happened here. Flight 93 is a Goebbels style propaganda flick designed to incite war crimes. The people who made it should be put on trial.

This is also the show where frequent commentor BG calls in and mentions SLC. Barrett replies, no surprise, that we are "one big PsyOp" and compares us to Nazis.

Vote Da Vinci Code Worst Movie of 2006

Well, our buddies at 9-11 Blogger are trying to get United 93 declared the worst movie of 2006 at IMDB and the Da Vinci Code is apparently the top vote-getter right now.

If you haven't seen United 93, I recommend it highly, although of couse, it is intense and as I recommended back in May, decompress before doing anything like driving afterwards. United 93 has already won Best Picture honors from the New York Critics' Circle and the Boston Critics, so the notion that it's the worst picture of 2006 arises solely from the nutbar crowd.

Book Review: Why People Believe Weird Things

Since I am on Christmas break, I have had the opportunity to read something other than finance cases, so I picked up Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine at the University Book Store and gave it a read.

While at times disappointing, on the whole I found the book interesting. Characters familiar to 9/11 debunkers such as Willis Carto and Joseph Firmage even made extensive appearences. The most useful section was a chapter where Shermer identified 25 logical fallacies. As I have said before, the conspiracy theorists are pretty predictable in that they fall into certain patterns of logical error. Whether you are a 9/11 denier, Holocaust denier, or believe that someone can bend spoons with your mind, you tend to come to the same conclusions in the same false ways.

One line, from page 35 described the 9/11 denial movement so well:

Each of us may have a different view of history, but they are not all equally valid. Some are historical, and some are pseudohistorical, namely, without supporting evidence and plausibility and presented primarily for political or ideological purposes.

That just about sums it up.

Loose Change Forum Thread of the Day

As Pat mentioned previously, a college film class did a project reviewing Loose Change. One of them started a thread on it on the Loose Change forum, to which do-over Dylan, who was twice rejected from film school, replied. He is not a happy camper:

mise-en-scene?

look man, throwing around fancy film school terms does NOT make you an authority on the matter.i have a question.

what have YOU kids done?
it's easy to throw insults and ad hominem attacks, but your guides fall very
short on actually tackling the evidence presented.

Here is my favorite comment:

we took Wikipedia out of the 2nd edition. and we still only used AFP about two or three times.

So I guess we now know what he considers the limit for citing neo-Nazi propaganda rags in a "documentary" film.

Able Danger Claim Found Baseless

The truthers always insist on a new investigation, but the fact is, they will ignore or reject every investigation that does not back them up. This is likely another example.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has rejected as untrue one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes — a congressman's contention that a team of military analysts identified Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before the attacks — according to a summary of the panel's investigation obtained by The Times.

The conclusion contradicts assertions by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and a few military officers that U.S. national security officials ignored startling intelligence available in early 2001 that might have helped to prevent the attacks.

In particular, Weldon and other officials have repeatedly claimed that the military analysts' effort, known as Able Danger, produced a chart that included a picture of Atta and identified him as being tied to an Al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Weldon has also said that the chart was shared with White House officials, including Stephen J. Hadley, then deputy national security advisor.But after a 16-month investigation, the Intelligence Committee has concluded that those assertions are unfounded.

Merry Christmas from SLC!

And a Happy Debunking New Year.

Blog Devoted to Debunking No Plane at the Pentagon

Unfortunately, like Russ Pickering (whose work gets cited), it's still essentially devoted to 9-11 Denial.

No matter what the Loose Change people say, we are not winning and the idiots are not helping.

A reasonable voice from the 9/11 Truth Movement brings you some insight on the state of the struggle. The "Truth" scene is currently dominated by ridiculous claims by ridiculous people whose goal seems to be providing not the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story. No matter what the Loose Change people say, we are not winning and the idiots are not helping. Herein I will help break the spell of one of their key arguments - no Boeing jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - in hopes of getting some people off that train before it crashes for good.

Bermas Complains that the NIST Report is too Long

Well this explains why he wasn't able to answer Mark Roberts' question during their debate. A caller on Bermas' radio show asks why people aren't getting people to look into the NIST report, rather than posting videos on You Tube:

Caller: The thing is, if you load that up, which you can do as we talk. You can see a photograph of all the papers, almost a meter high. The final report, it cost $16 million and took them 3 years to deliver the final report. During the interim 3 year period, they provided a series of reports to the Congress and the public. They got a DVD we should and could acquire quite easily. And then I contend what we need to do is look at the drawings and illustrations that are going to be in that report. For example, what we want to look at are the elevation drawings for the structural framing system of building 7. I could help anybody understand why we haven't been told the whole truth. Because that was intended progressive collapse in my opinion, and we can establish that as a fact if we actually look at the facts. But so far everyones is focused on going on You Tube or playing Oprah on the talkshows. And fools suggesting call your congressman.

Bermas: Well I don't think that we should necessarily... you know... calling congresspeople is going to work, but we could be applying pressure in different ways. Well you know, well obviously, but I think the You Tube thing is great and I agree, but this is rather new, but who is going to go over it? I guess Steven Jones has the time, Kevin Ryan will have the time. But how long is this? This is 10,000 pages or more. It's got to be more right?

Later on Bermas does actually suggest that a call be put out to structural engineers to look over the reports. Gee, ya think?

The "Real" Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Now they can get some real experts!

Well, it seems like the original 911 Scholars for Truth has all but self destructed this past month due to a good amount of internal ....uh....disagreement.

As an alternative for those interested, I have created a democratic, membership by approval (to avoid spammers and abusers) list at Yahoo at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Real911Scholars/

All are invited to join, but those with significant experience in the fields of science, education, physics, chemistry, building demolition, explosive technology, aerospace or flight, building construction, covert operations, internal government policy, and other similar areas are particularly encouraged to join our group and participate and contribute information and opinion, although no one will be turned away except those who simply want to rant and rave without any real and usable information.

I am so eagerly awaiting the lists of awe inspiring academicians.

Now It Can Be Revealed

Why Bush didn't make a scene at the elementary school:

PDoherty, Debunker?

It sounds too good to be true, but that's what he claims over at 9-11 Conspiracy Smasher.

Yes i suppose [the Wieck/Roberts debate with the Loosers] did help. Also the thread at jref by lyte trip on lloyd testimony convinced me what a truly deranged movement i was a part of.

I realised in the last few days that i wasnt just arguing with jrefers, I was arguing with the rational part of my mind.

I now only believe that warnings were ignored.

I think the CD hypothesis on reflection is absurd

BTW, I noted over a month ago on the JREF forum that PDoherty was quite capable of doing solid debunking work. Meanwhile, the folks at the Looser Forum are taking this with some dismay.

I'm Not Strongly Tempted

To attend this conference, even though it's in my backyard.

Strategies and Solutions Conference | February 23-25, 2007
Crowne Plaza San Marcos | Chandler, Arizona

That's right, three freaking days of the 9-11 nuttiness! The cost? Only $130 but if you register now, it's the bargain price of $80!

And what do you get? Sheesh, they've got conferences and workshops out the wazoo. These events certainly sound dynamic:

“How To Be The Media” Workshop
write press release
public service announcement

“How To Manage Your E-mail Lists” Workshop
Eric D. Williams
Sham Rao

Parameters of Power in the Global Dominance Group
Peter Philips - Project Censored

Follow-The-Money
Tom Foti, NY911 Truth
Richard Grove

Richard Andrew Grove certainly seems to be trying to follow the money; every interview I've heard with him he's temporarily between jobs (probably because our bosses in the new world order get him fired all the time). And a workshop on how to manage my email lists with not one, but two speakers?

Yet Another 9/11 Related Financial Scam

I have been covering the Leo Wanta $70 trillion scam in a series of posts over at my Chief Brief blog, and the more I find out, the weirder it gets. Now it is apparently tied in to the 9/11 attacks:

The historically unprecedented scandal surrounding the diversion of the long since formally agreed Settlement of $4.5 trillion payable to the corporate securities account with Morgan Stanley of Virginia-based AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., belonging to internationally renowned Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta, has brought the world financial economy to the brink of catastrophe, as a small cabal of criminal internationalist operatives seeks to implode the entire derivatives sector, after having enriched themselves by exploiting the diverted $4.5 trillion which should have been credited to the account last June, in accordance with a formal agreement signed by the President of the United States and other high office-holders in May 2006.

On 11th September 2001, associated criminal forces orchestrated the catastrophic demolition of the Twin Towers, gaining five further years for the ‘Ponzi Game’ derivatives sector thanks to the destruction of the relevant derivatives contracts held at the World Trade Center offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 employees forfeit to the criminal gangs. Cantor Fitzgerald salved any conscience its partners may have had by allocating 25% of their profits for five years for the benefit of the families of the bereaved, and agreeing to pay welfare costs for ten years.

No doubt this was considered by those in charge of the atrocity to have been a small price to pay for gaining the benefit of the sudden ‘forgiveness’ of the relevant derivatives contracts.

Some claim that the towers were destroyed as some type of insurance fraud by Larry Silverstein, others say it was for the put options, others claim an elaborate Mafia led arbitrage scheme, and still others allege $167 billion in gold was stolen. Now this theory arises. This must be the largest forced transfer of wealth since the October Revolution.

This is Pretty Funny

Now the Deniers are trying to get their message out by claiming that their videos are actually hot sex action. For example, here's a YouTube video that claims to be a deleted sex scene from Kill Bill, but is actually a cruddy "Where's Flight 93" film. Why are the deniers doing this?

OK...The media and forces that be are USING SEX to keep the sheep busy while they do their evil deeds. We too can and should use sex to get these people to listen. Since their minds have been so accustomed to wanting and needing sexual hooks, we can use their own weapon against them.

As one of the "forces that be", I deny this ridiculous charge.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Next President of the United States

I guarantee he'll be running in 2008. It'll be quite a novelty act.

Regarding Willie Rodriguez

I wrote a post earlier this week that I thought was pretty reasonable here, but I spiced it up a bit for the JREF forum, specifically using the word "traitor". For that I apologize to him. And I made a mistake in analyzing it without recognizing that at least some of my assumptions were coming from my personal ideological standpoint. For that I apologize to you.

I still think that spreading 9-11 Denial abroad is incredibly damaging to the country's image, especially in Iran, and hope that Willie will find that he has other engagements that week.

Debuking the Debunkers

Apparently David Ray Griffin, the high priest of the 9/11 conspiracy movement, is writing a book with the working title of title of Debunking the Debunkers, described rather ironically on Kevin Barrett's website as:

Today, those who attempt to defend the official myth of 9/11, like Galileo’s opponents, argue from authority, base their arguments on name-calling rather than evidence (the ad hominem fallacy)...and continue to make a Nass of themselves. What is the best way to respond to such inane “arguments”? David Griffin, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan are three remarkably lucid thinkers who exemplify the “serious” approach: Just use rigorous thinking and evidence to show that your opponents are wrong. (Griffin’s next book, whose working title is Debunking the Debunkers, promises to be a landmark in that genre.)

Well I certainly hope Dr. Griffin doesn't forget to address his misleading statements about cruise missiles at the Pentagon, or his statement that the buildings had to "come straight down and not make anybody very angry", or his assertion that there are "automated anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon", based on absolutely no evidence. And don't forget the excellent 9/11 Myths article on how he is misrepresenting testimony on the NATO response to hijackings.

I am eagerly waiting a detailed debunking. Maybe he will send me an autographed copy?

Der Spiegel on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Der Spiegel, which previously has addressed these topics before, in an article completely ignored by the conspiracy theorists including how the reports of hijackers being alive were cases of mistaken identities, now takes on the conspiracy theorists again. It is too long to excerpt meaningfully, but well worth a read.

The Money Quote

As we have long been saying, the 9/11 denial movement is more representative of a religion, than a science. In their recent debate, Avery and Bermas provide the perfect example of this:

Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your mind about this?

Avery: There is nothing. I have talked to so many rescue workers, I have talked to people who crawled out of the Pentagon. I have talked to people who ran away from building 7. I have talked to people who were affected by 9/11. I have talked to the victims. I have talked to countless people.

Wieck [to Bermas]: Anything that would falsify your belief?

Bermas: I gotta tell you, maybe before I really started looking into controlled demolition, but after you really take a look at 1,2, and 7 and I feel that you if you spend the time there, there is no way around it.

What does this mean though? Well, for those of you who fell asleep during high school science class, Bermas and Avery apparently among them, let's have Sir Karl Popper explain it for us:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

Something which cannot be logically falsified is not a theory, it is dogma.

Law School Prof Supports LIHOP, Says Anthrax Attack by US Gov't

Alex Jones and 9-11 Blogger are promoting this, but it's really no big deal.

"After the September 11th 2001 Terrorist attacks, the Bush administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, that would have, if already had not, set up a police state. And we know for a fact that the PATRIOT Act had already been drafted and was sitting on Ashcroft's desk as of September 10th.

Senators Daschle and Leahy were holding it up because they realised what this would lead to, indeed the first draft of the Patriot Act, they would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus. And all of a sudden out of nowhere come these anthrax attacks. And at the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11th or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed that the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. A trillion spores per gram, special electro-static treatment.

This is super-weapons grade Anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, and we had one before Nixon, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a US Government lab, there is no where else you could have gotten that."

The professor is Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois, but when we start looking him up, it becomes obvious that he's a Bush-Basher from way back, and this is just his latest line. For example, according to Jones' flunky Steve Watson, the prof claims:

At that point Boyle says it became very clear to him that there was a cover up in operation by the FBI. He points out that later on on reading one of David Ray Griffin's books on the 9/11 attacks, he discovered that Agent Bowman was the same FBI agent who sabotaged the FISA warrant for access to Zacarious Moussaoui's computer, which contained information that could have facilitated the prevention of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It became very clear to him in 2002, but somehow he forgot to mention this in the impeachment resolution he drafted in 2003, which contains not a word about anthrax. He also wrote a book Destroying World Order that was published in 2005 or 2006, which is summarized here. Curiously, once again, this "very clear" argument about anthrax was once again not mentioned.

His Wikipedia bio mentions some of the charming folks he has worked for in the past:

From 1991 to 1993, Boyle was a legal advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Boyle is currently attorney of record for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize for Governor George H. Ryan Committee.

Professor Boyle is a controversial figure at the University of Illinois. He worked to prevent a war between the United States and Libya in the 1990s, and speaks fondly of his interactions with Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Barrett on the O'Reilly Factor

You can watch the interview on You Tube. Nothing too exciting. Barrett repeats the 84% of Americans believe the government is lying about 9/11 myth, he also repeatedly claims that over 600,000 Americans have died in Iraq, before O'Reilly corrects him. O'Reilly takes obvious pleasure at telling Professor Barrett that he won't be teaching at the University of Wisconsin any longer.

Long And Interesting Critique of the Loosers Versus Wieck & Roberts

By the former child prodigy himself, Rick Siegel.

So Wieck wants to make sure that the confusion on the net is that:

“There is an actual threat from radical Islam. There are real jihadists out there who mean to do us harm.“

Dylan Avery and Bermas both mumble they agree.

Once again Wieck takes home his goal for the whole interview:
“Too much confusion on the net where people tend to deny the existence of foreign enemies. And, you find yourself wondering do these people simply want us to disarm ourselves, to ignore any threat from abroad. “

Mark Roberts agrees so everyone now is with the government program.

Mark makes a denigrating definition about a “conspiracy movement” that calls itself the “Truth Movement” that “believe that all terrorist acts are really committed by the United States” and points out that Dylan and Bermas did make such claims and goes on to point out that Loose Change has the no plane on flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

The Louder Than Words boys are just not equipped to struggle with this caliber of Cointelpro and did not know they were falling.

Yeah, Rick, and that was only .357 caliber Cointelpro; wait until you get a load of the .45 magnum version! He does make an excellent point here that I wish I had:

Dylan Avery finally wakes up from a comatose meditation that has him staring past to the future and goes on to comment about the film he made ONE year ago:

“We made that film essentially as a bunch a kids. That’s, that’s the reality of the situation. We’re a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I will be the first to admit our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it definitely does come to some conclusions that are not 100 percent backed up by the facts.”

Yeah, one year has passed and now we're adults, right, Dylan? I don't know if I've mentioned this but the Looser Forums have a "Youth for 9-11 Truth" section that is supposed to be limited to those under 25. The irony here should be obvious; Dylan and Korey are supposed to be sitting at the kiddies' table.

Ron handled this particularly well, as Rick notes:

Wieck tells them:
“I want you to have the opportunity to correct the record, you know, anything that you feel that ahh perhaps, you’d rethink that perhaps you don’t want to commit yourself to any longer? This is a good time to bring that out.

Well, it looks like when the prosecutor has worked out a deal and you have to now stand before the court and lie so you can “cop a plea”.

Obviously I don't agree with a lot that Siegel has to say, but it's interesting to see the LC appearance substantively critiqued from a Denier's standpoint.

Found via Nico Haupt's 9-11 Bloglines.

Guest Post On Mineta and Cheney

(Disclaimer: I am posting this article by Adam in the interests of presenting both sides of the story, and because it is well-written and extensively researched. As I mentioned to Adam in an email, this is the essence of good investigative blogging; taking online resources and comparing them to other resources available off-line. Neither James nor I endorse the contents of this post.)

Full Paper (web - open in Internet Explorer): http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/minetaweb.mht

Norman Mineta, the acting Secretary of Transportation on 9/11, testified before the 9/11 Commission in a public hearing that he entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. where Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge. In his testimony, Mineta explained that “probably about five or six minutes” after he entered the PEOC, he observed a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young aide.

“… during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"”

Mineta's Testimony [VIDEO] (00:03:54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-Srod3XUs

This testimony contradicts the findings in the 9/11 Commission Report because according to its revised version of events, Cheney did not enter the PEOC until 9:58. Accounts by Richard Clark, a White House photographer, ABC News and Cheney himself, all place Cheney in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was struck. The 9/11 Commission Report explains that F-16 fighter jets were not attempting to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon, as previous sources state, but were instead chasing a phantom aircraft. The military was not notified at 9:24 about the plane approaching the Pentagon (as previous public records and testimony showed), but instead claims that the military only learned, by chance, that AA 77 was lost at 9:34, minutes prior to the impact. Mineta’s testimony proves that Cheney knew about the incoming aircraft with sufficient time to intercept and shoot it down, thereby saving the 125 victims who died at the Pentagon. The orders that the young man was referring to when he asked if “the orders still stand” must have been orders to stand down and allow the aircraft to hit the Pentagon. This proves that 9/11 was an inside job.

Three Questions for Supporters of the Official Story:

Question 1: Did Mineta witness a conversation between a "young man" and Dick Cheney where the "young man" said "the plane is 50 miles out"? (Yes/No)

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: Yes

Question 2: Did Mineta witness this conversation before or after the Pentagon was hit? (Before/After)

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: After

Question 3: If this conversation occurred after the Pentagon was hit, why would Mineta think that the young man and Cheney were discussing the plane approaching the Pentagon?

Supporter of the Official Story Answers: Due to the confusion of the day, Mineta was mistaken about the time this conversation occurred and based on this; he incorrectly assumed it was the flight that struck the Pentagon. This conversation occurred sometime after 9:58 and therefore could not have been concerning the plane that struck the Pentagon.

But what if I could prove to you that Norman Mineta was not confused about the time he entered the PEOC? What if I could prove that Mineta did witness this conversation before the Pentagon was struck? What if I could prove that Dick Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58? What if i could prove Cheney was in the PEOC even before 9:20? Would you conclude that Mineta’s testimony is accurate and that Cheney did know about the plane approaching the Pentagon? Would you conclude that the 9/11 commission report covered this up and that we need a new investigation?

Mineta testified that he “met briefly with Richard Clark[e]” and was then escorted down to the PEOC. It was after this that he stated that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Richard Clarke described in his book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” his account of the events in the White House. Since he was the man in charge on 9/11, I could not imagine a more credible source. Richard Clarke confirms Mineta’s timeline of when he arrived in the PEOC and when Cheney was in the PEOC. He directly contradicts the 9/11 commission report in many areas. He clearly explains that Cheney would have definitely been in the PEOC before 9:28. He also states that his brief meeting with Mineta also occurred before 9:28 and that Mineta also joined the Vice President in the PEOC before 9:28. Richard Clarke could not possibly be confused about his timeline, as further evident by his notice of when the President made his address on CNN and when the Pentagon was struck.

I’ve quoted from his book and left “…” spaces to leave out sections that are irrelevant to this discussion. This is given in chronological order, and “…” spaces represent events occurring and the passing of time. Therefore notice that Clarke sent Mineta to the PEOC before 9:28, and Mineta’s recollection of the time of 9:20 proves to be accurate considering Clarke’s narrative. Clarke explains that Mineta called in from his car, went briefly to the Situation Room where Clarke sent Mineta to the PEOC to be with Vice President Dick Cheney. Also, Mineta was only 1.7 miles away when he left for the White House. Therefore when he called in from his car, he would have only been a few minutes away at most from the White House.

Richard Clarke’s Book:

Cheney began to gather up his papers. In his outer office the normal Secret Service presence was two agents. As I left, I counted eight, ready to move to the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, a bunker in the East Wing.

…

“You’re going to need some decisions quickly,” Rice said off camera. “I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.”

“What I need is an open line to Cheney and you.”

...

Shortly thereafter, Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President.
…

It was now 9:28.

…

The television screen in the upper left was running CNN on mute. Noticing the President coming on, Lisa turned on the volume and the crisis conference halted to listen.

…

Garvey read from a list: “All aircraft have been ordered to land at the nearest field. Here’s what we have as potential hijacks: Delta 1989 over West Virginia, United 93 over Pennsylvania…”

Stafford slipped me a not. “Radar shows aircraft headed this way.” Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing

…

Ralph Seigler stuck his head into the room, “there has been an explosion in the Pentagon parking lot, maybe a car bomb!”

…

Roger Cressey stepped back into the video conference and announced: “A plane just hit the Pentagon.”

…

“I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen,” I replied, “so the whole building didn’t get hit”.


Now, if you would like to hear the whole story from the mouth of Richard Clarke himself, he narrated his book. After listening to him read his full account, I ask you if this man seems confused about his timeline? Could there be a more credible source? Could you want any more proof that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58? Well, there is more proof, but the fact that Mineta’s testimony agrees with Clarke’s account is indisputable proof that Mineta and Cheney were in the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck.

Part 1 [1.3 MB] – 3min 56sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke1.mp3

Part 2 [1.4 MB] – 4min 04sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke2.mp3

Part 3 [1.7 MB] – 5min 01sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke3.mp3

Part 4 [1.5 MB] – 4min 30sec
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/clarke4.mp3

And if you needed any more proof, Cheney himself admitted that he was in the PEOC with Mineta before the Pentagon was struck on Meet the Press, September 16th, 2001.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ... Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...
MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.

Between Popular Mechanics, Debunking 9/11 Myths, Screw Loose Change, or any debunking site, no one has ever even attempted to publish an explanation for Mineta's testimony. These groups have attempted to debunked virutally every single claim made by the 9/11 truth movement except this one. Is Mineta's testimony undebunkable?

To debunk this testimony you must start with an explanation for when Cheney entered the PEOC. This is what the debate boils down too. This question must be addressed first, and any other arguments are a distraction from this central claim. Explain how Mineta and Clarke could be so mistaken, how their testimony is inaccurate, and explain why the evidence that says that Cheney entered the PEOC at 9:58 is more credible.

-Adam
http://www.truth911.net

Danny Bonaduce Comments on John Conner

Danny Bonaduce has a great interview with Fox New's John Gibson. Hot Air has the audio. Conner actually comes on the air to talk with him towards the end. I am starting to like this guy.

Barrett on the O'Reilly Factor

Kevin Barrett, the controversial part-time lecturer from the University of Wisconsin, fresh off of throwing Bill O'Reilly in the Boston Harbor, will be on his show tonight at 8 PM EST. I am expecting more heat than light, but at least it should be entertaining.

In the notice on his website, I actually found this part describing their Boston Tea Party event the most amusing:

Barbara Honneger, Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, was there, exposing "the clocks that broke the lie" -- the clocks in the Pentagon that stopped when the first cordite bombs went off, more than five minutes before any airborne object impacted the building. (Honneger is also a premiere researcher of the notorious live-fly hijacked-planes-into-buildings military exercise, and the many other related exercises, that were simultaneously occurring on the morning of 9/11, one of which apparently "went live" under the command of Dick Cheney.)

Cordite bombs? Cordite is a propellant used in artillery. What, did the Pentagon suffer a broadside from the Pirates of the Carribean?

This Will Be Controversial

The Great Debate: The Hardfire Edit

The Hardfire edit of the Mark Roberts -Loose Change debate is now available, here and here. It doesn't look any better for the Loosers.

Aid & Comfort to the Enemy

We don't talk about the treasonous aspects of 9-11 Denial too much around here; our focus is mostly on the domestic impact. But we also have to consider how 9-11 Denial affects our image around the world, and so this story from Jon Gold sickens me.

Tonight, as a surprise, I received a phone call from the great Willie Rodriguez. We talked for a good while, and during the conversation, Willie handed down this exclusive:

William Rodriguez, the last survivor of the North Tower has been formally invited by the Iranian Government to give a series of presentations about 9/11 in Iran. The reason he was invited, was because they saw his presentation in front of 22,000 Muslims during his recent U.K. tour. The Ministry of Cultural Affairs thought it would be a good idea as a "Peace Mission" to bring Rodriquez to Iran.

Rodriquez says that he "feels very honored that he has been tapped to do these series of presentations as a peace initiative, and he feels he will be more protected in these countries than in his own."

Given that the Venezuelan Government thought enough of Willie to provide him 5 bodyguards during his stay there, I can see why.

Gold doesn't apparently realize the irony of that last observation. But this is a disturbing turn nonetheless. Willie Rodriguez is apparently going to follow in the footsteps of David Duke, who recently addressed the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran. He is being used by our enemies as a "useful idiot", spreading hatred for America by accusing it of the crime of the century.

Willie Rodriguez deserves kudos for what he did on 9-11. He deserves a good raspberry for what he's doing now.

Update: UKDave raises an excellent point at JREF:

Consider: The US accuses arab terrorists of an audacious and seemingly successful attack. Not many arabs seem to disagree with that conclusion and many (the wannabe jihadists) appear to revel in it and express respect and admiration for 'sheikh' Osama Bin Laden.

Methinks this trip does Mr Rodriguez more harm in the eyes of the public and any message of 911 conspiracy he takes to the mid-east will not be believed by those who want to think that they did indeed manage to attack the mighty USA.

Book Burners for The Troof

Here's a report from the festivities in Milwaukee:

Our tea party for 9/11 truth was a success. We had Channel 12 News (ABC) covering the event. We started off with a march on Wisconsin Ave. in downtown Milwaukee. We passed out 9/11 Truth DVD's and flyers. We burned four 9/11 Commission Reports and dumped the ashes in Lake Michigan. We had 9/11 truth activists come from Madison, Sheboygan, and Darien, Wisconsin. We also had a number of members from the Lone Lantern Society come up from Chicago. We had some great speakers at our makeshift podium in the park overlooking Lake Michigan. We really enjoyed our dressed up Colonist, Glenn Davis, reading his 9/11 Truth proclamation from a scroll as we watched The 9/11 Commission Report burn in a Weber Grill. We finished our event off with some grilled hot dogs and of course we had ice tea. We are making a difference and the 9/11 Truth Movement will continue to grow. We will never go away until the truth is told and justice is served.

We laugh at this stuff but it appears to serve a purpose of giving these folks something to do and a chance to dress up (from Boston):



And talk like folks in the olden days. Verily, 9-11 was an inside occupation. But lest we forget what this is really about:

Alex Jones' Flunky Watson: Keep Child Porn Online

Kudos to our commenter Jay who points out this bizarre column by Alex Jones' sidekick Paul Joseph Watson.

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.

McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act," encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.

Comment boards for specific articles are extremely popular and also notoriously hard to moderate. Popular articles often receive comments that run into the thousands over the course of time. In many cases, individuals hostile to the writer's argument deliberately leave obscene comments and images simply to sully the reputation of the website owners. Therefore under the terms of this bill, right-wing extremists from a website like Free Republic could effectively terminate a liberal leaning website like Raw Story by the act of posting a single photograph of a naked child. This precedent could be the kiss of death for blogs as we know them and its reverberations would negatively impact the entire Internet.

Sounds horrible, except when we visit McCain's page on the proposed legislation, it turns out to be nothing like that:

Contrary to what has been reported by some news outlets, the reporting requirements in the legislation would apply only to child pornography. In addition, the bill is in no way targeted at the free speech rights of bloggers or anyone else communicating their views on the Internet.

"For example, the speech rights of bloggers and others online would not be impacted because the legislation does not require the monitoring of users or the content of any communication. Nor does it require online service providers to seek out child pornography on their sites. Rather, it requires online service providers to report child pornography when they become aware of it, either through a report from a subscriber or user, or through a discovery of the material by an employee. As a result, the reporting requirement would protect children while not imposing a financial or administrative burden on online service providers.

"I cherish the rights of individuals to speak freely on the Internet. That right and the ability to exercise it is what makes the Internet the critical innovation that it is. This bill doesn’t interfere with that, but is intended only to ensure that online service providers that find child pornography on their networks report those images to the appropriate authorities."

Back to School

Screw Loose Change and several other Debunkers get cited in Viewers Guides to Loose Change produced by a communications class at Trinity University in Texas. The guides appear to have a formal structure and are not debunkings themselves, but analysis of LC from the standpoint of documentary filmmakers. Interesting stuff.

Danny Bonaduce's Family Getting Threatened by Deniers?

According to this thread at the Looser Forum:

People are now sending danny, and his daughter death threats and well...He is well Conner just posted...

Ok, folks...some clowns have been posting stuff on Danny Bonaduce's 12 year old daughter's page, and on his wife's page which is completely unacceptable. and he told me THAT SOME PEOPLE SENT HIM DEATH THREATS, AND SENT THEM TO HIS 12 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER! this is not only unaceptable, it is stupid and illegal. LEAVE THEM ALONE. I understand some of your thoughts about danny, but by bringing his family into this is wrong. Danny has family who are in Iraq, and his brother, or brother in law got shot over there, so this is a sensitve subject.

I also just got an email from Danny's wife....they are pretty torn up over this...so chill out. no more posting stuff on his page...9/11 truth has his attention...so let me deal with this.

Of course, the dumber folks over there are now speculating that Debunkers are responsible for the death threats in an effort to hurt the 9-11 Denial Movement. Cui bono and all that nonsense.

Yet Another Loose Change Source In Police Scuffle

First it was Chris Bollyn, now it's Jack Blood:

On Sunday morning, December 17, 2006, syndicated radio host Jack Blood was Pepper sprayed and arrested by Austin PD. He received multiple injuries to his Face, hands, arms, back, and legs in a 12 hour ordeal in police custody.

Of course Blood claims to have been brutalized, but if you were getting beaten by the cops, would you do this?

“As I was not given the proper respect by my jailers, I fought back by unleashing a 3 hour Info-Tirade against Officer Harvey, making sure to wake him up every time he closed his eyes to sleep.

Part II of Roberts & Wieck versus Bermas and Avery

Can be viewed here. Watching it now; what struck me in the first ten minutes is that Dylan seems to nod his head in agreement while Mark Roberts is speaking.

Some terrific bits in here, so watch it all, and be sure to watch the eventual Hardfire broadcasts as well, but my favorite bit is at about 27:55 when Ron Wieck asks Dylan and Jason what would "falsify" their beliefs. This is a buzz saw that the Loosers completely misread. They express confidently that nothing in the world could change their minds.

Of course, this is not the response a detective, or a documentarian, or a scientist would give. It is the response of one whose beliefs are based on faith, not on evidence.

Roberts & Wieck with the Loosers

Here's at least Part I of the debate on Hardfire.

Dylan does surprise me at about 6:45:

We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That's the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts.... Loose Change is not really a very fair representation of the 9-11 Truth Movement. I'd recommend 9-11 Press for Truth, 9-11 Mysteries--really 9-11 Press for Truth is the one you can show to anybody.

Maybe he is really humble?

Bermas "covers" a Flight 93 point at about 8:50:

"95% of the aircraft has been recovered, but I've never seen it. With TWA 800, you got to see the hanger--whatever happened with TWA 800, you know it hit the ocean and it was dispersed throughout there--and they did put together a large portion of that aircraft and everybody got to see it...."

Of course, the reason why they put together TWA 800 was because they wanted to know what happened to it. There was no "mystery" about what happened to United 93, and thus there was no reason to reconstruct the aircraft.

Watching the rest of this half-hour now and will append more thoughts as they come up.

Update: Bermas apparently thinks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was executed. Heck of a researcher, there, Dylan!

Update II: Discussion in the JREF Forum. Discussion over at the Looser Forum. I especially enjoy this comment from Roxdog over there:

I think you nailed it right there. I know I can come off as pretty abrasive but I'm am normally very polite and nice until my intelligence or sanity is questioned.

Funny thing, Rox, but nobody ever questions my intelligence or sanity, although given how often I try playing Ace-Five suited perhaps they should.

The Mark Roberts Loose Change Debate

He has just put it up, so I haven't had a chance to watch it, but Dylan Avery is posting clips from their recent debate.

The UN is Taking Over!

More paranoia from Bermas' radio show.

I think we’re being setup to be the bad guy here. Obviously, but I mean, if we get setup to be the bad guy there isn’t going to be a chance to be a revolution in this country, because we’re going to have UN forces on every corner. We can’t sit here.. because if the dollar collapses we’ll have even less power against our government. We’re already being setup to be the bad guy, and its not going to be US forces, you know, are the ones taking over. I think they will help. It will be mainly UN forces, and that’s what scares me. And I really think we are being setup to take the fall.

I used to think this whole "UN takeover" thing was limited to paranoid right wing nuts during the Clinton administration, I guess I was wrong. Having seen the efficacy of the UN first hand, I have always found it bizarre. The UN couldn't successfully takeover Bosnia, a country of less than 4 million, people, what could possibly make people think they could take over a country with a $400 billion defense budget?

Bermas Still Not Sure if Mark Roberts is Real

Jason Bermas comments on their recent debate with Mark Roberts (at least he fixed his annoying Skype problems) on his Paranoia Radio show.

But you know, I got to sit down and talk to Mark, about things other than, you know, government sponsored terror. And, you know, he is just a regular guy. Whether he is on a payroll or not, or whether he really believes this stuff, whether he is a tour guide, or whether Mark Roberts is his real name, I don’t know. But you know, people are people. I do those sorts of things, because I don’t want anyone to think that I fear these people or their accusations. I’ll take them on, face to face anytime. Because they need to be confronted, they can backpedal, and try to use circular logic all they want, but there is still so many questions about 9/11, the evidence points to an inside job.We need to be adamant and have no fear.

No, they aren't paranoid. Later he suggests buying Loose Change DVDs as Christmas gifts. Yeah, nothing says "I care" more than paranoid conspiracy theory movies that you can download for free off of the Internet.

The Comforting Conspiracy Theory

Although the article is about the conspiracy theories surrounding Princess Diana's death, this part certainly applies to 9-11:

The great American novelist Don DeLillo, who has made paranoia his theme, long ago explained the appeal of Fayed and even LaRouche to otherwise reasonable people when he said that 'if we are on the outside, we assume a conspiracy is the perfect working of a scheme... [It] is everything that ordinary life is not. It's the inside game, cold, sure, undistracted, forever closed off to us. We are the flawed ones, the innocents, trying to make some rough sense of the daily jostle. Conspirators have a logic and a daring beyond our reach.'

Nothing Lord Stevens can say will change the minds of the readers and journalists of the Express and millions of others who feel themselves to be DeLillo's outsiders. Like children with their noses pressed at a grimy window, they try to make a 'rough sense' of the murky world beyond by imagining that the British government - of all incompetent institutions - has the ruthless intelligence to get away with organising an astonishing crime. You can't explain away their fantasies with the half-rational explanation that they are manifestations of wider conflicts - not least because the overwhelming majority of Express readers aren't Muslim. They believe in this conspiracy theory, as they will believe in the next one, because conspiracy theories bring order to a chaotic universe. The hundreds of pages of patiently collected witness statements will make no difference to those who are too frightened to accept the messiness of life.

Hat Tip: JREFer GlennB

John Conner Takes On the Partridge Family

I am continously amazed that these people keep on posting videos that make themselves look like idiots. I guess they will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.

The Scientific Method Applied to Thermite

Oddly enough, 9/11 deniers can actually use some sort of logic while attacking each other. Wood and Reynolds write a pretty decent critique of Jones' thermite hypothesis:

Dr. Jones has used these principles as a club to beat on the work of other 9/11 researchers, yet his own work concerning causation in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 has not been subjected to the same standard. Below we test Dr. Jones' thermite hypothesis for proof of concept, consistency with the data, practical applications and other issues. After more than a year of development, the thermite hypothesis continues to fall short, as demonstrated below.

Of course the irony that their work fails these tests even worse, apparently completely escapes them.

Jones Ducks BBC Debunking Show

From the blog of a BBC News editor:

A number of you looked forward to the other programmes in the series, which continues in the New Year, especially the programme about 9/11. To answer questions about what we are covering in the 9/11 programme, we are covering all the key issues, including World Trade Centre 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane but which collapsed. And yes we did contact Professor Steven Jones, but he did not want to be interviewed for the programme and instead we interviewed the co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Professor Jim Fetzer.

Snicker, snort!

A More Honest Denier?

Over at 9-11 Blogger, Loverevolution writes:

Is it possible that 911truth is not the only way to achieve our goal (which i presume is the same for all of us, to restore our gov't of, by and for the people - 911 truth being just an avenue towards that goal.)

Well, hush ma mouth! And here I thought the goal was to expose the "truth" about the most important event of the 21st century.

Deniers Turning on Dr Jones?

Ah the paranoia is finally catching up! Check out this thread on Democratic Underground; it seems likely that this meme (absurd as it is) will catch on with the 9-11 nutbars:

Quote:

When Oct posters tried to discredit Jones by connecting him with Cold Fusion I thought that he had been a proponent of it. I also thought that conventional wisdom had shown cold fusion to be "kooky" science. After watching this video I see that there is no consensus on whether cold fusion research should be continued or not. That isn't what I am posting this for, though. The role Jones played in cold fusion was to put out results which he claimed disproved the Pons Fleischman research that had been going on for years. What bothers me about this is he was acting, according to this , on a tip from an "informant" at the DOE (Department of Energy). The DOE was, it appears, representing the interests of energy companies, of course, who did not want a source of cheap energy known. The movement against CF, in fact, seems to be driven by corporations and their pals in the government & Universities. So, could Steven Jones be a government operative or acting on the behalf of the powers that be? Making a name for himself in 9-11 only to be "disproven" later? How is he supporting himself? I don't trust his opponents at Scholars for Truth, either with their "Space beam weapons", I wonder about the legitimacy of the whole group , it is like a script, form two groups and divide which was exactly what we were told would happen. I was kind of mad at Spooked when he posted the anti-Jones thread and now, belatedly I'm seeing the point.

Steven Jones, conspiring with the oil companies to keep cheap energy away from us? You can see how the Deniers could incorporate that easily into their paranoid worldview. More important, there's a video with a catchy name: Heavy Watergate. It's hilarious from our standpoint, but will probably prove compelling to the kooks. Jones pops up in the movie at about 11:40. If you've read Bad Science, you'll be quite amused at the characterization. For example, it is claimed that Jones learned about Pons & Fleishmann's work from "an informant at the DOE". Of course, in Bad Science this "informant" turns out to be the guy in charge of research grants, and the reason he sent the info to Jones is because Jones was already working in the field and was probably the best man to judge the validity of the work.

The no-planers are also busy attacking Jones as well. Nico Haupt tries to tie him to the murder of a cold fusion proponent. Of course, the murder in question was actually committed by a pair of crackheads, but you know the CT response to that: They were patsies.

Note: If you read 9-11 Blogger, you will see a lot of support for Jones over there. I am not sure if this is Jones' last redoubt or if he is still considered the rock star of the movement.