Sunday, January 30, 2011

Richard Falk: I Was Just Asking Questions

Or as we fondly refer to it, JAQing off.

For anyone who read the blog post in its entirely it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows– that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.


No, of course he never endorsed doubts about the "official version of 9/11"; he just endorsed "devoted scholars of high integrity" like, heh, David Ray Griffin.

David Ray Griffin, who believes "9-11 was an inside job by the US government"? Here's Grifter in 2006:

Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks.... When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the Pentagon ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").


Griffin believes in all the nuttiest stuff in the 9-11 Troof Movement: that the cellphone/Airfone calls were faked via voice-morphing, that the hijackers are alive, that a missile hit the Pentagon, etc.

Labels: ,

56 Comments:

At 30 January, 2011 13:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I was just asking questions..."

Horse hockey. I ask questions and when I get a reasonable answer I don't then launch into an argument where I question the person who answered my question's authority/integrity.

There's a differnce between asking questions and being an a-hole.

 
At 30 January, 2011 18:31, Blogger paul w said...

"...there remain certain gaps in the official explanation..."

Erm, what 'certain gaps'?

"...that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations..."

Yes, the idiots are called 'nutbars'. Your point is?

"...and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest..."

Woops, there it is.

Yup, he's a 100% nutbar truther.

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, the gaps in the 9/11 Commission Report have been nicely listed in Griffin's essay "The 571 Page Lie".

Here's the link, 'cause obviously you don't know how to google:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Another gap is the NIST report, which terminates its analysis at the moment of collapse initiation and thus dodges all the baffling mysteries of the destruction of the towers: symmetry and totality and speed of collapse, pulverization of the concrete, and melting of steel.

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Erm, what 'certain gaps'?

Yeah, that's what I hope the U.N. is asking this prick first thing Monday morning. As long as this man holds a role in shaping the future of Palestine -- or anybody -- the world has a right to know exactly what parts of the 9-11 attacks he's having trouble with.

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Another gap is the three minutes between the official time of flight 93's impact, 10:03, and the time registered on three seismographs--10:06. This gap is coincident with a certain gap on the cockpit voice recorder.

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Another gap is your inability to name any independent engineers who are willing to stick their necks out and endorse the NIST's report's findings about the collapse mechanism.

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, are you ever going to get tired of posting the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over again?

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yet another gap is the 91% of the 9/11 widows' 300 questions that were not answered.

Yet another gap is the 84% of Americans who, when polled back in 2006, would not say that they thought the government was telling the truth about 9/11.

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Another gap is Brian's inability to explain why he was thrown out of Richard Gage's group.

Another gap is Brian's inability to explain why Carol Brouillet says he sexually harassed her.

Another gap is Brian's inability to explain where he came up with the "meatball on a fork" model.

Another gap is Brian's inability to explain why he stalks Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 30 January, 2011 21:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, why are you changing the subject from "gaps in the official explanation" to libels about me?

You're not capable of addressing the gaps in the story, are you?

 
At 30 January, 2011 22:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, why are you changing the subject from "gaps in the official explanation" to libels about me?

Because the "gaps in the official explanation" are figments of your imagination. What I say about you is at least based in fact.

You're not capable of addressing the gaps in the story, are you?

One can't address what doesn't exist.

 
At 30 January, 2011 22:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

The gaps are quite clear:

*The 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Comission Report

*Termination of the NIST analysis at the moment of collapse initiation

*The three minute time discrepancy and the missing recording for flight 93

*The lack of any independent engineers who will express confidence in the collapse findings of the NIST report

*the widows' 273 questions unanswered by the 9/11 Commission

*the 84% of Americans in 2006 who thought the gov't was not telling the truth about 9/11

I know, nobody cares. That's your answer to everything.

 
At 30 January, 2011 22:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know, nobody cares. That's your answer to everything.

No, Brian. People care about 9/11. They just take it seriously and don't pay any attention to delusional liars like you and lists of imaginary "gaps".

Anyway, isn't it about time for you to call us "girls", Brian?

 
At 30 January, 2011 23:10, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, seriously, the 115 Omissions and Distortions? You mean the list that starts with six of the hijackers are alive? :)

 
At 30 January, 2011 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Good work, Pat. So now you've just got 114 to go.

 
At 31 January, 2011 04:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Yet another gap is the 84% of Americans who, when polled back in 2006, would not say that they thought the government was telling the truth about 9/11.

And we can expect that 84% to speak out in support of Richard Falk when?

 
At 31 January, 2011 05:44, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, the most important gap revealed on this thread is the one between your ears.

 
At 31 January, 2011 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, you guys are ever-inventive with the false metrics.

Of course they're not going to speak out in support of a pro-Palestinian, and that fact has nothing to do with the fact that they think the government is not telling the complete truth about 9/11.

 
At 31 January, 2011 10:14, Blogger Bill said...

I love "the government", the boogie man of allegedly grown adults.

 
At 31 January, 2011 10:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Of course they're not going to speak out in support of a pro-Palestinian, and that fact has nothing to do with the fact that they think the government is not telling the complete truth about 9/11.

When people, like Brian, goes out into the world & promotes the retarded 9/11 Truth Movement & their theories. Something rather rash comes, like the incident in Egypt.

 
At 31 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually, the way CBS/NYT framed the question was "the Bush Administration". Does that make you happier?

 
At 31 January, 2011 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, what's the matter, do you think torturing dictators should remain in power for 30 years, getting themselves elected five times in single-candidate elections?

You don't like freedom much, do you?

 
At 31 January, 2011 11:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

Of course they're not going to speak out in support of a pro-Palestinian, and that fact has nothing to do with the fact that they think the government is not telling the complete truth about 9/11.

Brian, you do realize that "the government is not telling the complete truth" is quite different from "the government blew up the WTC using death ray beams from space/magic thermite/remote-controlled planes". For instance, I think the government is not telling the complete truth about 9/11, so I'd be included in your 84%. Ask how many people believe what you believe about 9/11 being an inside job, and the number won't be 84%, I guarantee.

 
At 31 January, 2011 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, not even Dr. Kevin Barrett ever claimed that 84% of the people believe it was an inside job. (He claimed 36% on Russia Today, which was a total lie.)

"Inside Job" is a straw man, as are death rays and magic thermite. There's nothing magical about thermite. You can buy the stuff on ebay.

I don't believe it was an inside job myself, so it doesn't much impress me if other people don't.

 
At 31 January, 2011 12:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, not even Dr. Kevin Barrett ever claimed that 84% of the people believe it was an inside job. (He claimed 36% on Russia Today, which was a total lie.)

Great. What point are you trying to make by bringing 84% up again and again?

"Inside Job" is a straw man, as are death rays and magic thermite. There's nothing magical about thermite. You can buy the stuff on ebay.

True, there's nothing magical about thermite. Of course, by claiming it could have been used to bring down the WTC, people are giving it magical properties it does not possess.

I don't believe it was an inside job myself, so it doesn't much impress me if other people don't.

You don't believe it was an inside job, huh? Then what's with the endless babbling about spray-on thermite in the elevator shafts? Jesus, Brian, you cook up something completely ludicrous like that for no reason?

 
At 31 January, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

84% is the percentage of Americans in 2006 who would not say they believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth about 9/11.

Thermite needs no magical powers to cut 1/4" steel plate in the upper core columns, Ian.

I've explained myself many times, Ian. I'm sorry you can not understand a rational approach to problem solving. It would appear that you were educated in a cave by people who only grunted at you and slapped you.

I only invoke spray-on nanothermite to show that the people who claim it could not be installed because of union territoriality or some other such nonsense are wrong. The fact that I defend the viability of a proposition that does mean that I believe the proposition. I know you think there are only two sides to every question, but reality is more complicated than a football game.

 
At 31 January, 2011 13:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

84% is the percentage of Americans in 2006 who would not say they believed the Bush Administration was telling the truth about 9/11.

Who cares? I'm interested in the percentage who believe the Bush administration destroyed the WTC. That runs less than 5%, the last time I checked.

Thermite needs no magical powers to cut 1/4" steel plate in the upper core columns, Ian.

That's nice, Brian.

I've explained myself many times, Ian. I'm sorry you can not understand a rational approach to problem solving. It would appear that you were educated in a cave by people who only grunted at you and slapped you.

My, such squealing! Brian, it's not my problem if you can't find any evidence to back up your insane belief that the Bush administration destroyed the WTC in a controlled demolition. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

I only invoke spray-on nanothermite to show that the people who claim it could not be installed because of union territoriality or some other such nonsense are wrong.

You invoke it because you're a deranged liar and lunatic desperate to keep your delusions about what happened on 9/11 going.

The fact that I defend the viability of a proposition that does mean that I believe the proposition.

Oh, that reminds me. I don't actually believe the towers were destroyed by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. I'm simply defending the viability of that proposition.

I know you think there are only two sides to every question, but reality is more complicated than a football game.

Brian, your total lack of understanding of football is amusing. You make up your facts.

 
At 31 January, 2011 14:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There you go again.

You allowed the goat molester to hijack the thread and change the subject to the goat molester's favorite subject: The goat molester and his idiotic lies, distortions and cockamamie theories.

When will you people learn?

 
At 31 January, 2011 15:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I only invoke spray-on nanothermite to show that the people who claim it could not be installed because of union territoriality or some other such nonsense are wrong.

What about the metal in the Hindenburg, Brian? Its thermite painted skin didn't cut or melt the metal skeleton.

Don't you just love how history can prove your paranoid ass wrong?

 
At 31 January, 2011 16:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I understand football just fine. In fact, there was a time when I was fascinated by it. Punting, conversions, downs, extra points--so much for an eight-year-old to learn!

WAQo, I have explained to you many times that thermite is difficult to ignite. Plus, you have provided no evidence to support your claim about the the Hundenberg.

You guys are just trying to bury under dumbspam my listing of the gaps in the official explanation, of which gaps paul w and TR are amazingly ignorant.

 
At 31 January, 2011 16:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I understand football just fine. In fact, there was a time when I was fascinated by it. Punting, conversions, downs, extra points--so much for an eight-year-old to learn!

I'm guessing the big kids gave you wedgies and this is where you bitterness and resentment towards other human being began....

WAQo, I have explained to you many times that thermite is difficult to ignite.

All the more reason for Dick Cheney to use it to destroy the towers.

Plus, you have provided no evidence to support your claim about the the Hundenberg.

As opposed to all the evidence you've presented for spray-on thermite in the elevator shafts...

You guys are just trying to bury under dumbspam my listing of the gaps in the official explanation, of which gaps paul w and TR are amazingly ignorant.

There are no gaps in the official explanation, Brian. If you weren't so dumb and insane, you'd realize this.

Now let's talk about something really baffling: why you continue to refer to Laurie Van Auken as a "widow".

 
At 31 January, 2011 17:08, Blogger Triterope said...

of which gaps paul w and TR are amazingly ignorant.

Whoosh... Brian completely misses the point yet again.

 
At 31 January, 2011 17:38, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Ian, I understand football just fine. In fact, there was a time when I was fascinated by it. Punting, conversions, downs, extra points--so much for an eight-year-old to learn!"

Give it a year or two and you may get it, after all you are how they say, "Special" and we can't expect much from your kind.

 
At 31 January, 2011 17:49, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"You guys are just trying to bury under dumbspam my listing of the gaps in the official explanation"

Only gap I see is the one between your ears.

You can see here how Brian does not understand simple scientific reasoning. You don't need to explain every little gap, you only need to present enough proof to reach a consensus. And it is clear the consensus among the best and brightest in structural engineering is the towers fell due to fire and not controlled demolition. And after 9 years NOTHING has come forward to disprove the observation.

Brian uses the same logical fallacy creationist use. "God of the Gaps" They squeeze god into small gaps of evolution. Ignoring the overwhelming proof for evolution. And truthers are about as respected as creationist.

Of course being the dullard he is Brian would never understand that observation.

 
At 31 January, 2011 18:20, Blogger Bill said...

"the Bush Administration"

Better. Now explain what that has to do with:
The 9/11 Commission Report
The FEMA Report
The NIST reports
The NTSB investigation
PENTTBOM
The ASCE Pentagon Study
The Purdue Study

...to start

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

To start?

9/11 Commission: Exec. Director was a member of the Bush Administration, having served on the transition team and undertaken a restructuring of the National Security Council that involved demotion of Richard Clarke, counterterrorism expert, so he no longer had cabinet-level access and his urgent warnings about al Qaeda could be ignored.

FEMA report--Director of FEMA was Joe Albaugh, who had run Bush's presidential campaign, then ran the Florida efforts during the vote-count controversies. Deputy Director was "Brownie". Lead investigator was Gene Corley, veteran of the OK City report.

NIST--The interference by NIST political flunkies with its NOAA scientists in terms of the climate change controveries is well documented.

NTSB investigation--what NTSB investigation?

PENTTBOM. All I know of the FBI investigation is that the FBI went around seizing and disappearing evidence; that FBI agents complained that they were taken off cases involving hot leads on the 9/11 perps on the excuse that they needed to do something else to prevent future attacks; that FBI agents who were anxious to testify were never subpoenaed, that in the spring of 2002 the FBi Director said they had found not one piece of paper linking al Qaeda to the attacks, and that Rex Tomb said there was no hard evidence linking Osama to the attacks.

ASCE Pentagon study--hampered by poor site access. Sozen and Mlakar had previously worked with Corley on the OK City report.

Purdue study. Haven't investigated that one. How much DoD, DHS, and NSF funding does Purdue get? "Project conception" for Purdue's report was done by Sozen; Purdue images were used by the FEMA report.

My, what a cozy little crew!

Thanks for asking!

 
At 31 January, 2011 20:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

So in other words, nothing but innuendo.

Just what I expected from our li'l petgoat.

 
At 31 January, 2011 20:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And don't forget guilt by association.

If it wasn't for logical fallacies, the peter puffer would have nothing at all.

 
At 31 January, 2011 20:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah guilt by association. Like being members of the Bush Administration or getting fat contracts from same.

 
At 31 January, 2011 20:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yeah guilt by association. Like being members of the Bush Administration or getting fat contracts from same.

Brian, this is boring. Let's talk about something else. How's the skiing in Tahoe this winter?

 
At 31 January, 2011 21:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mete Sozen, it turns out, is a professor of structural engineering at Perdue.

How's the skiing? Better than in Kentucky, I can tell you that.

 
At 31 January, 2011 21:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

How's the skiing? Better than in Kentucky, I can tell you that.

Uh, yeah, I imagine. I don't know if they have any ski resorts in Kentucky (they do have them in Tennessee and North Carolina, though).

So what's your favorite album of all time, Brian?

 
At 01 February, 2011 07:22, Blogger Bill said...

So nothing that shows that any of those reports lied for Bush.

The NTSB did investigations into all 4 hijackings in coordination with the FBI.

 
At 01 February, 2011 09:04, Blogger Garry said...

This is for Brian:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/efi/lowres/efin938l.jpg

 
At 01 February, 2011 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, where's the NTSB report? All they did was contribute. They issued no independent report.

 
At 01 February, 2011 11:04, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Bill, where's the NTSB report? All they did was contribute. They issued no independent report.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Eight (8) independent NTSB reports on 9/11 are linked from the bottom of this page.

 
At 01 February, 2011 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

jreb, so do those NTSB papers prove it was not an inside job?

Just kidding! Thanks for the lead.

 
At 03 February, 2011 10:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I have explained to you many times that thermite is difficult to ignite. Plus, you have provided no evidence to support your claim about the the Hundenberg.

Actually the Hinderburg accident supports itself & th evidence proves you wrong about painted on thermite.

Stick that up your ass Willie wannabe!

 
At 03 February, 2011 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I'm not aware that you have ever presented any evidence that thermite was painted on the frame of the Hindenburg.

 
At 04 February, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I'm not aware that you have ever presented any evidence that thermite was painted on the frame of the Hindenburg.

I said skin, not the frame you twit! Learn to read!!

http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths

Hindenburg’s cotton-canvas covering was doped to keep it taut for aerodynamic reasons and to protect it from damage from water, wind, and small objects hitting the surface. The dope was a solution of cellulose acetate butyrate to which aluminum powder had been added. At the top of the hull, a layer of iron oxide was applied to the inside surface of the covering to protect the fabric from the UV radiation in direct sunlight.

Iron Oxide & Aluminum powder = thermite.

God, you're so fucking stupid Brian!

 
At 05 February, 2011 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thermite is very difficult to ignite, normally requiring a magnesium fuse. At what temperature does hydrogen burn?
Also, how much aluminum powder was added? You need equimolar amounts of Fe and Al to make thermite. Obviously if you have relatively small amounts of either element, you will have small amounts of actual thermite.

Are you trying to make the case that the survival of the Hindenberg's steel frame means that thermite does not melt steel?

Have you seen Jonathan Cole's video "Jonathan Cole - 9/11: Thermate Debate"?

 
At 05 February, 2011 09:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thermite is very difficult to ignite, normally requiring a magnesium fuse.

If it's difficult to light, then why are you still babbling about it?

Obviously if you have relatively small amounts of either element, you will have small amounts of actual thermite.

If that's the case, painted on thermite wouldn't work to bring down 2 110 story buildings, would it? No, it wouldn't!

Are you trying to make the case that the survival of the Hindenberg's steel frame means that thermite does not melt steel?

The Hindenburg's metal skeleton was thinner than the WTC steel. So painted on thermite means that if it can't melt a metal skeleton of a blimp, then it sure as hell can't melt 2" steel.

Have you seen Jonathan Cole's video "Jonathan Cole - 9/11: Thermate Debate"?

Don't care!

 
At 05 February, 2011 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thermite is very easy to ignite if you have a magnesium fuse (or a sparkler).

Painted on correctly-formulated nano-thermite and some random formulation of aluminum and orin oxide on opposite sides of a cellulose matrix are two different propositions.

The Hindenburg's skin coatings was not by any stretch of the imagination "painted on thermite".
Thermite can melt steel. "Mythbusters" and National Geographic have gone to enormous dishonest lengths to try to create the impression that it can't, so it's not surprising that lots of people are confused about this.

 
At 05 February, 2011 12:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Thermite can melt steel. "Mythbusters" and National Geographic have gone to enormous dishonest lengths to try to create the impression that it can't, so it's not surprising that lots of people are confused about this.

Yeah, why should we pay National Geographic any attention when Brian Good, failed janitor and sex stalker extraordinaire can tell us all about the properties of magical spray-on nanothermite!

 
At 05 February, 2011 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now we're back to the thoroughly discredited "[p]ainted on correctly-formulated nano-thermite" bullshit.

You have NO EVIDENCE that "molten steel" was present at ground zero. Furthermore, you have no evidence that "Nanothermite" was used to demolish the WTC towers. All you have are unsubstantiated claims that are the product of your twisted, syphilitic mind, and your twisted, syphilitic mind alone.

 
At 05 February, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, are you calling Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, and Philip Ruvolo, FDNY liars? They all testified to molten steel.

You deny reality.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home