Saturday, September 30, 2006

Faces of Evil

The pilots of Flights 93 and 11, respectively, are supposed to appear in a video at the (London) Sunday Times, staring Noon tomorrow. Reading from left to right, Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta.

To the Germans who knew them in Hamburg they seemed entirely normal. The tape explains this mistake. It would be hard to look less homicidal — until the camera pulls back and reveals that Atta is sitting next to an AK-47.

So the tape not only fills a gap in the story of September 11 but also provides chilling proof of the difficulty of fighting Islamic terrorism: these two “normal”, happy, unthreatening individuals turned out to have an explosive effect on the history of the 21st century.

More Vanity Video from the Loosers

This one reportedly has a long segment featuring Abby and Gravy, although I haven't come to that point. What drives me crazy watching these featurettes is that Dylan doesn't seem to know that we don't care to see lots of scenes of them getting into elevators, walking along streets, taking the subway, etc. One of the more interesting segments is at about 15:00 with Alex Jones coaching the Loosers on how to handle their debate with the PM editors. In addition, we get lots of scenes of the camera dudes filming the other camera dudes. What's up with that?

Update: Gravy gets Alex Jones to say "He [Chief Daniel Nigro] told to pull them, but that doesn't mean he's involved..." Of course in this context, "pull them" clearly means to pull the men out of the building.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Moron Morgan Reynolds

The Guy Who Puts the Denial in 9/11 Denial

The big story behind this whole Chavez thing is not just that he is lying about his military service, although that irks me greatly, but that people in the 9/11 denial movement are so quick to grab onto his ridiculous stories, and will hold on to in to it regardless of the facts. Yesterday he appeared again on Alex Jones' show, where Alex gave an impassioned defense of him.

He addressed (poorly) a couple of issues that we have brought up, but my favorite bit is where he claims, that nobody is even contesting that he served in the military, he has a DD-214 after all!

Oh brother.

Could Someone Teach Them How to Edit, Please?

The Loosers have come out with yet another video from their September 11th trip. This one is so long they had to split it into two parts. What is next, are they going to have an MTV reality show? 3 Loosers, 1 house, 2 bottles of cheap whiskey...

Paranoia, Thy Name is Fetzer

I am not a mental health professional, but this guy should have some type of condition named after him. From Uncle Fetzer's radio show yesterday:

Every civil engineer, every mechanical engineer, every structural engineer knows the government is lying to us. And I say, what is wrong with them? Where is their intestinal fortitude? Where is their integrity? Where is their loyalty to the nation? (Unintelligible) principle. Are they so cowardly? Are they so gutless? Are they so unwilling to place their own, their own feeble reputation on the line by stating the obvious and true?

Well, I am glad there are so many brave and valiant philosophy professors willing to tell the truth about structural engineering! He continues later:

These civil engineers, structural engineers, mechanical engineers, have families they have relatives, they have friends, they have an investment in this country. If they believed in what the United States used to be, a constitutional republic, with a separation of powers, if they don’t think they should be transformed into some type of fascist state they need to speak up! We need them, we need them now! There is no time in the future when their voice will make as much of a difference. When we are incarcerated in detention facilities in new style concentration camps it won’t do any good to say, “Oh, I only wish I had said something then. They have to say something now.

If you hate your brain, this interview also has a series of the worst engineering analogies I have ever heard.

Note: I improperly transcribed the first quote originally (hey, it is tough to listen to this guy and get your brain to work at the same time), it has since been corrected.

New Hampshire Prof Under Fire for 9-11 Denial

Unfortunately, this case is unlikely to end up like Steven Jones' suspension.

Woodward, a tenured professor, belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members question the official story about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and contend that the U.S. government either had knowledge of the attacks or had a role in them.

Gov. John Lynch called Woodward's beliefs "completely crazy and offensive" and asked the trustees to investigate.

Andy Lietz, chairman of the university system trustees, said a "careful review" of Woodward found his teaching consistent with accepted standards, "even though he has expressed some ideas that many find objectionable." Some of Woodward's students have defended him.

Woodward has said he does not push his views on his students but has mentioned it in his classroom in the spirit of full disclosure.

Full disclosure? You mean like disclosing that he's a nutbar?

Reactions from other bloggers:

Blue Crab Boulevard:

The only way his beliefs would be relevant is if he were using them as an example of how otherwise intelligent people can be stupid enough to fall into idiotic and dangerous beliefs. Abnormal psychology, then.

Damian Penny:

As for Professor Woodward, the impression I get is that he brings up this stuff in class, kind of like the history professor I once had who moped about the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I wrote earlier, if Woodward is making the students accept his twisted theories if they want to pass, he's clearly crossed the line. If he's allowing students to argue with him, it's probably within bounds.

That's pretty much my take as well. Kevin Barnett is a different matter; there he's teaching 9-11 Denial as part of the curriculum.

James Joyner:

The idea that politicians, let alone students, should have any say as to which professors are hired and fired is nuttier than anything Woodward espouses. The professoriate has always operated as essentially a guild, with experts monitoring the conduct of other experts. That system has worked for centuries.

That's pretty close. I don't think students should not have any say; their input should certainly be considered, but it should not be dispositive.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

But The Thrill We've Never Known...

Is the thrill that'll gitcha when you git your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone!

Well, the Loosers don't get their picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone, but they do get it on the webpage accompanying this terrific article by Matt Taibbi.

I don't have the space here to address every single reason why 9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid, so I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.

Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?

Strikingly, there is no obvious answer to that question, since for all the many articles about "Able Danger" and the witnesses who heard explosions at Ground Zero, there is not -- at least not that I could find -- a single document anywhere that lays out a single, concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why. There obviously is such a theory, but it has to be pieced together by implication, by paying attention to the various assertions of 9/11 lore (the towers were mined, the Pentagon was really hit by a cruise missile, etc.) and then assembling them later on into one single story. But the funny thing is, when you put together all of those disparate theories, you get the dumbest story since Roman Polanski's Pirates.

Hat Tip: Shrinker at the JREF forums.

A Day Late and a Dollar Short

A few days ago I was joking on the JREF forum that Mr. Chavez would make Uncle Fetzer's weekly radio program. Sadly I was right, about 20 minutes into the program his guest Sean Glazier brings it up:

Glazier: Absolutely and there were automated missile batteries there [at the Pentagon] and recently L.J. Chavez, who was a sergeant who worked at CENTCOM in Florida, Central Command in Florida recently came out and confirmed that during 9/11 there was a stand down order, uhh, issued. And the officers were arguing over it during that day, and he has given interviews as well.

Fetzer: And my impression is that he has just been sacked, which is of course completely consistent with this administration anyone who speaks the truth, they get FIRED or PUNISHED or humiliated, people who lie and deceive the American people, they're rewarded and promoted and honored.

Hey, remember they are the Scholars for 9/11 "Truth".

Another Film Coming

Michael Berger is coming out with a film called "Improbable Collapse". As you can probably guess, the two "l"s in collapse are the World Trade Center Towers. There's a preview here.

Steven Jones makes an appearance in this film, trying his hand at statistics. Typically for a 9-11 Denier out of his field, he does very poorly. He claims that the odds against a steel building coming down by fire are roughly 1 in 400. Of course, no odds are given for steel building coming down after being hit by a 767, and then burning. As for WTC 7, it did not solely come down from fire; it was also pelted with debris from WTC 1.

Berger is the "media coordinator" for

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Photoshop Follies

It appears that 9/11 "whistleblower" Lauro Chavez has now martyred himself and been fired. He doesn't say exactly what for, but based off of this thread on JREF, it may be for faking his DD-214. I was reluctant to latch on to this theory too quickly, but after looking at various examples on the thread, it appears to be a very solid hypothesis.

It also explains a lot of questions. For example, I was wondering why he has the Special Forces Qualification Course listed as "14 weeks", since the course is not 14 weeks long. Well, it seems it became 14 weeks long because those were the numbers that he had available. To demonstrate, here is the 4 weeks, from his entry for his PLDC (click to zoom).

And here is the entry for the 14 weeks for his Special Forces Q Course.

Notice that the "4WKS" is identical in both examples, to the pixel. Also note that the 1, in "14" is the same one as in 1997, and both 1997's are also identical to the pixel, even though the 9's in each one are completely distinct from each other. You can also see that the 1 in "14" overwrites both the forward slash and the "4" in a completely square manner, as if it has been cut and paste.

So where did he get the "Special Forces Qualification Course" that followed this, then?

Well, here is the "Q" in qualification.

And here is the HQ CENTCOM from the top.

Notice the missing line over the "Q CE" which also carries over identically to the other "Q", like someone missed something cutting and pasting.

If you go through you can match up all the letters in the Special Forces claim from somewhere else, take a look at the document, or the JREF thread for more examples.

Update: An even better example, which proves this is a fake beyond a shadow of a doubt (thanks once again to the guys at the JREF forum).

If you look, the "Y" in analyst from block 11 just doesn't seem right.

Well, that is because this font is a serif font, it has those little tails, but the "Y" is missing those, compare it with the ARMY from block 2.

Now you see the tails and the base. So where did this san serif font come from for a single letter? Well, that is in the part of the document which is filled in, the part of the document which is pre-set is in a different font, for example here is the word "ENTRY" from block 7b.

He copied that letter from a completely different font. Geez, has anyone seen Dan Rather lately?

Jon Gold Debunks Debunking 9-11

How are the Popular Mechanics guys going to respond to this substantive debunking of their book?

It occurred to me after reading his responses that it wasn't Popular Mechanics that the family members lobbied to investigate the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information regarding the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was recently called "Derelict in its' duties."

Yep, that's what Jon Gold thinks is a debunking.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Should We Apologize to Lauro Chavez?

I mean, man, I'm just thinkin' that maybe this dude is tellin' the truth, man, because he sounds so authentic military, man:

And I worked right for General Franks, I don’t know if you’re familiar with who Tommy Franks was? He was - I was the only individual allowed to work on his personal communications at his home and in his plane and I’d ask, General Franks, a few times, ya know, when I was over his house, and um, like, ya know: "Sir, what a ya think about all this"? And he’s well, he’s like, ya know, "Just" ... He’s like, ya know, "There are some things that need... that just happen and they need to happen and we don’t know why they happen but..." He gave this really, like, ominous answer and I’m like, Whoa man! Ya know, I wasn’t expecting that.

Totally, dude!

This Guy Is Getting Hilarious

SGT Chavez's hole gets deeper:

Q - How soon after 9/11 did you go to Afghanistan?

It was about 2 ½ weeks after 9/11 that it happened, the 26th, a couple of weeks, few weeks.

That is interesting, because in his original letter he said the 25th. Must be a time zone thing...

Q - Now that you know what you know and you were sent to Afghanistan... Did you still think in your mind that you were trying to get the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Bin Laden?

That’s the thing. I flew into Kabul Airport, like, I mean literally when our C5 came in, we were escorted by jet. We were escorted by F15s and we were getting shot at, like, they were literally, like, pop-shotting up at the planes as we were trying to land because the Special Forces and the Air force para-rescue guys had just, had just cleared it, like, literally like, we were there like, I was there, like, five hours after like, the fire fight where they actually got everybody, like all the Taliban moved back out of the airport so that we could land planes, ya know. So, like, I’m on a, we’re on a big C5 and we’ve got all our vehicles underneath us, and I’m mean, I’m just like, “Oh God, ya know, this thing could fall out of the sky, because it doesn’t ...”

This part is just hilarious. For starters C5s were hardly used at all during the beginning of the war, the airports were not long enough or in good enough shape to handle that large of a plane, the C-130 and C-17 were used instead. Secondly, how did we manage to take over the entire airfield, without anyone other than Mr. Chavez, not even the Taliban apparently, noticing for almost 2 months?

He continues:

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a C-5 fly, but it looks like it’s not even moving, it’s so big. So it’s really easy to like shoot at, like a machine gun, ya know, and ya know, like, there were bullet holes on the sides of the plane. And of course they didn’t come all the way through, but and we’re all looking at them later and I’m like, “Holy cow, we’re getting shot at!”

Wow, now we have bulletproof C-5s! What will they think of next?

But, yeah, I thought we were going to Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden. I’m helping in the search to hunt down Bin Laden. No. Not the case. Actually, I actually was providing communications for special ops guys and then I was pulling roving guard, guarding the pipeline.

Q - Guarding the pipeline for oil for United States... corporate, right?

That’s right. A lot of people don’t know about the pipeline. A lot of people, when I talk about that are like, “What are you talking about?” And I’m like, “Dude, there’s a huge... like, the Alaskan pipeline, that comes all the way through Afghanistan, like down in the Gulf, it comes through Pakistan...” I don’t know where all it goes, honestly I haven’t really found a whole lot on it, but... I was, I had to pull shifts, like every two or three days they’d..... I’ve have to pull a six hour rotation, on top of a humvica(?) driving around pieces, these sections of this pipeline to make sure that, ya know, like, guys weren’t going to come blow it up. And ya know, then, that’s when I started thinking, I’m like, I’m like, well, “What am I here for man? I’m not protecting people, I’m protecting oil!” Ya know, who wants to get shot for that? They give you guys awards, ya know, and I’m just like, “For what? Ya know, what did we do? We protected someone’s money. Ya know, somebody’s investment.”

Yeah, a lot of people don't know about the pipeline, like, for example, the government of Afghanistan!

“The agreement was signed in the expectation that the security situation would change in the next two years,” said political analyst Qasim Akhgar. “It certainly will, but it is not clear whether it will get better or worse.”

The pipeline proposal has been on the table for decades. The first tentative agreement was brokered in 1984, but fell apart because of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Another plan in the early 1990s was scrapped because of the factional wars that followed the Soviet withdrawal.

I am starting to think this guy is just having fun making this stuff up. There are other lies and factual errors in his interview, but I will let others point them out, else this post get too long.

Update: Now Chavez has posted answers to questions people have been asking. Curiously enough, he doesn't address any of the questions we have been asking.

Who's Who In 9-11 Denial

Here's a pretty terrific article on the 9-11 Deniers, going through many of the players we've covered here, from Hufschmid to Avery to Alex Jones to Chussodovsky to Justin Raimondo.

However, it is equally irresponsible to accept official complicity in the attacks as a foregone conclusion, and twist every fact to fit it. The mini-industry which has sprung up around 9-11 “conspiracy theory”—as well as the activist campaign that serves as its unpaid advertising department—has merely replicated the dogmatism of the “official version.” Worse, the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled “researchers” is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the “official version.” The ostentatiously named “Truth movement” is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.

The First Rule of Holes

I am actually getting a bit tired of talking about this Lauro Chavez, but as long as he keeps lying, I am going to have to keep exposing him. Now he is facing the problem, that since he has started lying, he has to make up new lies to back up the old ones. Today he is back on Alex Jones' radio show At the 1:01 mark:

A lot of people question, “If you were in Afghanistan, how come you don’t have an Afghan service ribbon?” I don’t have an Afghan service ribbon, I don’t have a combat action badge. I am entitled to those things, but those are just awards that I don’t feel are necessary. The reason I don’t have those, is because to get an award your commander has to put you in for it stating why, and you go through this whole process. It sometimes takes 3 or 4 or 6 months. When I came back from Afghanistan, I did a Chapter 13 which is an early drop for college. The regulation states that if you have a letter from an accredited university they will let you out up to 6 months prior to your ETS date. Your end of term of service. So I didn’t want to wait 6 months. I just wanted to get out. So I got accepted to Ohio State, and then I left.

Regarding the awards, that is true if you are receiving an award for merit, but an award received for simply "being someplace" is a much simpler administrative action. It is not uncommon to receive these awards before you even leave your deployment. Getting overseas time on your DD-214 is an even simpler process.

Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, a Chapter 13 discharge is not "an early drop for college" it is a "Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance." The early drop for college, titled "Early separation to further education" is a Chapter 5 "Convenience of the Government" separation. He even lies about it being 6 months out, the policy only states 90 days.

Geez, did he think nobody would look this up?

9-11 Mysteries

I believe James has already mentioned this film, but it's remarkably well-produced and incredibly poorly researched. I just wanted to point out one quite ridiculous error that demonstrates clearly that the film's producers are not up to speed.

The Space Cadet announcer says (about 35:30), "The camera recorded multiple explosions in the towers. Here is the South Tower Record. Then, the building fell."

If you watch the movie at this point, they do indeed show the supposed times that the producers of 9-11 Eyewitness claim Rick Siegel's microphone picked up explosions just before the collapse of the South Tower (of course what he probably picked up was wind noise, since microphones much closer to GZ did not hear these "explosions"). But it's amateur hour, as the building shown collapsing is the North Tower; you can tell by the antenna atop the building. The other building has already collapsed.

Nice job, Brad! Your disinfo check from my bosses at the New World Order is in the mail!

Veterans for Truth?

The group "Veterans for 9/11 Truth", which started this whole SGT Chavez thing, is now questioning his validity, although ironically they are getting it wrong too. The site also steals from this blog without citing us, but that is a minor point:

The Veterans for 9/11 Truth have a Mission Operation Vigilant Truth so we do try to be as truthful as possible, and we have some issues with the story told by Lauro, on the Alex Jones Radio Show. Listen to Lauro on Alex Jones

Chavez: "Yeah, I was deployed to Afghanistan for 8 months. About 2 weeks after 9/11 happened. I was there in support of the United States SOCOM,which if everybody has played the game SOCOM they are actually a real entity, located all at MacDill Airforce Base, and I provide them with communications, for the special ops teams. We flew into Kabul Airport, we were actually under fire as we flew in."

Editor Note: The war started on Oct 7, 2001 almost 4 weeks after 9/11.

I find it odd that Lauro was deployed in Afghanistan, and has no ribbon on his DD 214. Proof of Lauro's Military Record

Afghanistan Campaign Medal

4. Criteria: a. Authorized to be awarded to soldiers who deploy to Afghanistan in direct support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) on or after 24 October 2001 to a date to be determined or the cessation of OEF.The area of eligibility encompasses all land area of the country of Afghanistan and all air spaces above the land.

I actually wouldn't expect Chavez to have the Afghanistan Campaign Medal on his DD-214, because it wasn't created until 2005. Originally they had planned to just have one medal for both Afghanistan and Iraq, but too many people complained about it (and rightly so) so they made separate ones.

But there are still several problems with his DD-214, he still should have some record of foreign service. In fact there is a category which specifically says "foreign service" on the DD-214, which in his case lists "0000 00 00". Also, even before the campaign ribbon was awarded he should have received an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (later changed to a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal) and it was also standard to award a NATO Medal.

Mr. Chavez replies to the V911t question in the comments on 911 blogger:

Alfons, you need but ask and I can explain why I have no ribbon on my 214 - and no combat action badge - its because of how I left the military. I used a chapter 13 to get out early for School. So go research that...

That was my loophole exit - however, I was there and I really dont give a crap about some ribbon. They give out ribbons like candy anyway. Who cares...


I had no idea what a chapter 13 was, so I had to look it up. Turns out it is a "Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance." He omitted the part at the bottom of the DD-214 which lists the type of separation, so this is likely. This hardly strenghens his case though, and is a pretty weak excuse. Getting credit for a combat tour is not something you have to get special permission for, the admin people who are doing your discharge just go through your records and type it up. It is highly unlikely you would want it omitted from your DD-214, since that is what you base your veteran's benefits off of. If, for example, Mr. Chavez wanted to claim a disability from all that depleted uranium he supposedly was exposed to in Afghanistan, he would have a hard time doing so, because his DD-214 does not show he was ever in Afghanistan, or overseas at all.

This combined with the odd Special Forces Q course entry, and the lies about pulling guard duty on a non-existent pipeline, show the story is highly suspect.

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part IV

This continues the vanity section for Paul Thompson. We learn how he first became suspicious of the official story and how some reporter for the Village Voice thought he was the shizzle. We see the great man himself reflecting on his greatness. But then we get back to the real topic, which is the greatness of Paul Thompson's timeline.

The facts presented here are true, but there is a careful intent to present them as proving advance knowledge by the Bush Administration of 9-11. We are told of Ramsey Yussef, but somehow in the context of the never-attempted plot to blow up planes over the Pacific, not the 1993 WTC bombing. In fairness, the film does include Dan Rather talking about Yussef's connection to the prior incident, but that part is soft-played in comparison to the "they should have known about the possibility of terrorists hijacking planes."

Indeed, that is the message here for the most part. But of course terrorist hijackings were nothing particularly new. Not to mention that this particular threat was discovered back in 1995. So you're saying that the Clinton Administration should have instituted changes to security at airports that would have been in place when the Bush Administration took over?

I'm not going to delve into the arcana that follows; you will believe it or not based on your political party. There's nothing really factual to debate; all that's left is partisan slant, which is not a topic we cover on this blog.

Monday, September 25, 2006


We have been discussing the story of Lauro Chavez, a former Army Sergeant who apparently worked at CENTCOM (although according to his DD-214 he did not serve in Afghanistan as he claimed). Now he is on the Alex Jones radio show, available here.

Chavez talks about working at the SCIF on the morning of 9/11, where he supposedly overheard orders to standdown NORAD. Conveniently he doesn't remember the names of any of the people involved. He also mentions the former commander of the US Army Corps of Engineers (his good buddy), which he identifies as a Lieutenant General, but refuses to name. I am not sure of the point of that, the only 3 star in CENTCOM would be the deputy commander, it is just a matter of looking it up and seeing who had that job in September 2001. Hint: It was Lieutenant General Michael P. DeLong, who most likely was never head of the Army Corp of Engineers, based on the fact that he was a MARINE. I suppose next we will hear that this 3 star was just passing through to say "hi" to SGT Chavez...

Anyway, the command center part, is all vague speculation, but then he starts talking about his (supposed) overseas service, here it gets rather bizarre, at the 57:30 mark:

Chavez: Yeah, I was deployed to Afghanistan for 8 months. About 2 weeks after 9/11 happened. I was there in support of the United States SOCOM, which if everybody has played the game SOCOM they are actually a real entity, located all at MacDill Airforce Base, and I provide them with communications, for the special ops teams. We flew into Kabul Airport, we were actually under fire as we flew in.

Yeah, I would think you would be, considering in September, 2001, the Kabul Airport was firmly in the hands of the Taliban. The war would not even start for another two weeks.

Anyway, he continues:

Chavez: Yeah, and I thought I was going to hunt bin Laden, and that was clearly not the objective of that war. I still don't know what the objective is. Other than to subliminally condition the people.

Alex Jones: Can you say 400 billion in opium a year coming out of there?

Chavez: Exactly, or the pipeline. A lot of people are like, "what pipeline?"

Alex Jones: Unoco

Chavez: I had to pull roving guard to make sure nobody blew up that pipeline. That was where our billions of dollars for the war went. (unintelligible) pull patrols.

Oh really. Well that seems like it would be a rather hard thing to do, considering the pipeline hasn't been built yet!

Chavez: You know, you got soldiers over there, that are using live depleted uranium in their tanks, in all the mortars, and all the howitzers. And DU is horrible, not only does it kill people, and that's fine, but its technically against the Geneva Conventions because it provides like an after effect, it's a radioactive material.

Uhh, how many tanks are we using in Afghanistan? I have never heard of any. But I guess this guy would know, he snuck into Afghanistan to repair computers with Delta Force and guard non-existent pipelines.

9-11 Deniers Yuck It Up

By redoing the dialog in the graphic novel version of the 9-11 Commission Report.

See them:

1. Imply that screeners at the airports let the hijackers through intentionally.
2. Snicker about the boxcutters.
3. Imply that the pilots should have easily been able to overpower the hijackers.

Nothing is too low for the 9-11 Deniers. Cox & Forkum were right.

Lauro Chavez DD-214

Our whistleblower is apparently on Alex Jones' radio show. Trying to defend himself against claims of fraud he has posted Chavez's DD-214 on Jones' website. After a quick glance I notice several problems. First of all, Chavez claimed an 8 month deployment to Afghanistan, but he has no overseas time listed, nor does he have an expeditionary medal or any other medal that would indicate a combat deployment. Under schools he lists the Special Forces Qualification Course (14 weeks), but the full "Q" course is much longer than 14 weeks, and he lists neither the required Airborne training, nor the Special Forces MOS.

More Controversy in Air Force Refueler Program

I read this in my morning's Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Aims to Extend Aerial-Tanker Competition

The Air Force wants to postpone until 2009 choosing either Boeing Co. or a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. to win a contract potentially valued at $20 billion or more to supply aerial tankers, according to a senior Pentagon official.

I only bring this up, because these are the very same tankers that Jim Fetzer and other 9/11 "scholars" are speculating were flown into the World Trade Center in September 2001.


9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part III

The third ten minute segment of the movie mostly concerns the 9-11 Commission report.

Another odd bit: As New York City Mayor Bloomberg begins his testimony, one of the JGs says, "We begged and pleaded that people should be put under oath." This is just a poor choice from the filmmakers, because what could Bloomberg have to hide? If you recall he wasn't even mayor when 9-11 happened, he was just a candidate for the office. "At the beginning they were not...."

So subsequently they were? Sheesh, you got your way and you're still griping?

Next we get into the crappola about Phillip Zelikow. The movie makes it seem like the Jersey Girls did some crack investigative work.

Kristen Breitweiser: "We have found out that not only did he serve on the transition team for the Bush Administration, that he was a person who wrote a draft memo for the setup of the Bush Administration's National Security Council, that he was an individual who wrote the preemptive war strategy that was eventually used for the war in Iraq, that he's a close friend of Condoleezza Rice's, we want him to resign."

One thing that is soft-played in this film (but it's not hard to read between the lines) is that the Jersey Girls and many of the other family members portrayed in this film are also anti-war activists, who not only opposed the war in Iraq, but also the one in Afghanistan. While informing us of the supposed conflict of interest of Zelikow, the filmmakers make no effort to advise us of conflicts of interest for the family members.

At about 22:00 we hear griping that the commission was not being given the information they needed. Immediate afterwards, there is a complaint that too much information was provided. Somewhat reminiscent of the complaint the two grandmothers had about the food at the nursing home:

Grandma 1: The food here is terrible.
Grandma 2: And such small portions!

Then we get the complaint that classified documents were only viewed by two of the commission members: Republican Zelikow and Democrat Jamie Gorelick. More sinister music, and "At that point I knew the fix was in."

Classified information is classified for a reason. Revealing it to one Republican and one Democrat strikes me as a common sense solution. But of course to the conspiracy nutbars, the Democrats are just as likely to be involved in the coverup as the Republicans. I don't quite know where they get this idiotic notion, but it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Hilariously, the mockumentary goes on to present its first administration hero; Richard Clarke. Never mind that Clarke admitted that he failed in his responsibility to protect the nation from terrorism. He's a hero because he apologized for his mistakes.

Then we get griping about how President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on meeting with the commission together, in private, and not under oath. More creepy music. More griping about them not being under oath. But of course if you really believe that Bush was lying about 9-11, do you think that being under oath would change that?

Then the 9-11 Commission Report was issued and we get more griping about that. It didn't answer my questions, complains one of the JGs. What questions were unanswered? They don't specify, but as we have already seen, most of the question that these people are asking have been answered. They just don't like the answers because they don't implicate Bush.

Then we get griping about the fact that the news media pretty much accepted the 9-11 Commission Report as doing a good job. Chris Matthews, hardly an administration shill, asks whether the families, "Can't deal with reality." A Newsweek editor says that the families seem unable to accept that there was no way the attacks could have been stopped. Good thinking, but of course, that's not what the movie wants us to think.

We get griping that the news media, "Failed again and again to connect the dots." Another little aside to the conspiracy crowd. One of the women says that she was hoping for another Woodward and Bernstein. Let me guess, that would result in the impeachment of the President? Is it obvious that's what this is really all about--that the Jersey Girls wanted heads to roll?

Ah, but the Woodward and Bernstein did arise, in the person of Paul Thompson, the man behind this movie. Amusingly one of the women comments that "He would back it up with links to mainstream media sources..." just as the video shows this:

Yeah, that well-known major media source, Mother Jones.

Unintentionally Ironic Loose Change Forum Post of the Day

I found this post amusing:

Hi! At my high school, I am doing a research paper in my English class about the 9/11 conspiracy theory, and mainly about the Flight 93 conspiracy theory.

I have watched "Loose Change: 2nd Edition" twice now, and found it very interesting, hence my topic choice. I have just one problem. My teacher requires credible sources (i.e. magazines, newspapers, books, etc.), and will not accept anything found from a Google or Yahoo search.

This makes it hard, because much of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on the internet and it is very oppinionated and doesn't look credible. So, I was wondering if anyone had any links to credible sources like magazine or newspaper articles or any book titles that could help me out.

I can see how that would be a problem. I especially find it ridiculous that this high school English teacher has higher standards than the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth". My hat is off to him or her.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

The Newest "Whistleblower"

In the tradition of Richard Andrew Grove, the truthers have found their newest "whistleblower", in this case a man named Lauro Chavez, who claims to be a former Army sergeant who served in CENTCOM. A quick analysis of his "whistleblowing" shows he is suspect, to say the least:

Ill start by saying a few months prior it was announced by President Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading up operations over NORAD our North American Aerospace Defense Command. Along with many of my peers,we were shocked. Over the years, if you research NORAD, it has always been under the command of a Military officer.
This is simply not true, the commander of NORAD in 2001 was Ralph Eberhart, an Air Force General.

On the morning of 9-11 I had been on base prepped and ready to go since about 0400am.
Anyone who has ever spent 10 minutes in the military, would know there is no such thing as "0400am".

So, I was standing in the SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility), which is basically this underground bunker command post for USCENTCOM, when the first plane hit.
SCIF actually stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility"

To delve even further, as Im standing there watching the towers collapse, next to me is one of my good friends and a former commander of the Army Corps of engineers. He is a demolitions expert. He was even more surprised than me.
The commander of the Army Corps of Engineers is a Lieutenant General. What are the odds that a SGT (E-5) would be standing there in a bunker chatting with a "good friend" who is a former 3 star general?

We all knew then we all realized that this was not some group of unorganized cave dwellers from Afghanistan orchestrating a perfect hit on American soil.

Anyone who had spent some time in CENTCOM would know that Al Qaeda was not just a group of "unorganized cave dwellers". They are an organized international network of Islamic terrorists.

Shortly after the Pentagon was struck I called my close friend that I went to Basic Training with. All civilian lines were down and I had to contact him via STU which is a black line classified phone system.

A STU (Secure Telephone Unit) is not a type of phone system, it is a type of phone. The military phone system is actually referred to as DSN (Defense Switched Network).

On September 25, 4 days before my 25th birthday,I deployed to Afghanistan.

Unless this guy was some sort of elite special ops soldier (unlikely for an E-5) it is unlikely he deployed on September 25th, the US didn't even begin the bombing of Afghanistan until October 7th. The widespread use of ground troops was still a couple of months off.

Over the 8 months I was there I had never seen one intelligent Afghani soldier. They were all tattered and scrawny and could barely shoot their weapons straight. This does not mean that there were not men that could fly a plane, but after what I saw it was extremely hard to believe they could be taught to fly a sophisticated piece of aeronautical equipment.

The last I checked no Afghan soldiers (Afghani is their money, not their people) piloted any of the 4 planes. I am pretty sure this information reached CENTCOM.

Not only does he [Steven Jones] profoundly agree that building 7 was a controlled demolition he can prove it. After he analyzed the piece of debris they found; there were large traces of sulfur and Thermite found. If you did not know, Thermite is a chemical compound found in many explosives including C4 which I have used many times in the Army. It leaves a distinct smell and identifiable residue upon explosion. Dr Jones found large traces of this from the rubble.

Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, and it is most certainly not used in C4.

I don't know what this guy has been using, but it definitely wasn't C4...

Update: I originally found this story posted on the Veterans for "Truth" site via the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" site (we all know what sticklers for the truth they are). 911 Blogger has picked up the story though, along with a bunch of comments both supporting and attacking him. Of course, in the usual conspiracy theorist "heads I win, tails you lose" logic, if he is a fake, it is only because he is a plant by their enemies to discredit the movement.

Mr. Chavez's e-mail is in the original article, so I wrote him to give him a chance to respond.

You Say You Want a Revolution

Jeez, this crap brings back awful memories of the 1960s.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part II

Doing the second ten minutes here. First there is a complaint about how very few people who were rounded up initially ended up charged. But we know now that very few other people in America were involved in the plot. There is no mention of Zacharias Moussaoui, however, which is a rather glaring error. By November of 2001, the narrator says, the Jersey Girls decided that an independent investigation was needed to do what the Justice Department and the media "seemed unwilling do". Boy, gave the Justice Department two months, did they? We get a little teaser of CT nonsense from one of the Girls:

"We felt that the country was at risk from terrorists and incompetence... and um, maybe worse."

Oh, yeah, maybe worse, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

Then we get into the destruction of the towers. Again, no direct controlled demolition discussion, but it's certainly hinted at. "Why did the buildings fall? How could skyscrapers just like, crumple to the ground in ten seconds?" As usual, the narrator is unable to resist the "factoid". "Never before, or since, had fire caused a steel frame building to collapse."

Of course, that's BS both ways. The World Trade Center towers did not solely collapse because of fire; there was also a little matter of the planes slamming into them, destroying columns and stripping fireproofing from the steel. And steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire before; just not highrise steel framed buildings.

Then we get into World Trade Center 7, and I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to doubt this is anything less than a CT film cleverly disguised.

We get the mother of a firefighter giving us the next lie:

"The largest structural collapse in world history, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War and not one governmental or elected official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

In fact the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are probably the most studied disasters of all time. Major building code changes have come out of these studies. Are these women, who tell us how much they have studied 9-11, simply unaware of all this?

The announcer also tells us that Tom Kean (whose name is hilariously mispronounced the way it looks--it's really pronounced Kane) and Lee Hamilton headed the commission which was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, but the commission members were all former "DC insiders and lawyers". (Menacing music). Boo, hiss.

Then we get a gripe about the money. As usual they cannot resist having one of the family members lie for the camera. Bob McIlvaine is called on to do his part:

"Remember in the 1990s they spent a hundred million dollars to investigate Clinton's sexual exploits. 100 million dollars!"

Except of course that the Starr Investigation cost $80 million and it investigated a heck of a lot more than Clinton's sexual exploits (including Whitewater), and resulted in the imprisonment of the sitting governor of Arkansas, as well as other convictions. McIlvaine is the father of a 9-11 victim and a longtime 9-11 Denier. He even appeared on Cynthia McKinney's bizarre Citizen's Commission back in 2004.

9-11 Press For Truth Analysis Part I

This is the hot new video in the 9-11 Denial Movement, although that seems a bit odd as the film does not (according to those who've seen it all) include any mention of the popular conspiracy theories, like the Bumble Planes or the missile into the Pentagon, or the controlled demolition at the World Trade Center. I am going to analyze the film in short bits; today I'll look at the first 10 minutes.

The film starts with a brief intro of clips from 9-11, including the initial CNN report and the crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower. It then jumps to President Bush. The music at this point is rather harsh and jarring in the background as the president gives his speech that evening. The image splits into two, then four then 9 and so on, distancing us from him.

We are introduced to three of the four Jersey Girls, 9-11 widows from the Garden State. Note particularly the soft music as they are introduced. The voice over notes that these widows had questions. At the top of their list is the question of "Why had the US military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"

Here the film engages in a little casual dishonesty. First we are shown a clip that the first hijacking was reported to the military at 8:38 AM (true). Then the announcer intones, "The last plane was reported to have crashed in Pennsylvania just after 10:00 AM (true enough, but the screen says 10:06, which is false; the 9-11 Commission concluded that the plane crashed at 10:03). One of the Jersey girls laughs and says, "That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And that is a lot of crap. First, even if we use their times, that's not even an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

As you can see most advance warning that NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector, a unit of NORAD) had for any of the hijacked planes was seven minutes for Flight 11. The notion that our air defenses could have intercepted any of these planes with that little warning is completely unrealistic.

The movie then goes on to contrast this supposedly slow response by the military to the 1999 incident where air traffic controllers lost radio contact with Payne Stewart's plane. But in that incident air traffic control (PDF) got no response at 9:33 AM EDT. A Cubana Air flight tried to raise the plane at 9:38. According to the NTSB report on the plane crash the a military plane intecepted Stewart's jet at 9:54 CDT. That may sound like 21 minutes, but note the Time Zone change--it's actually an hour and 21 minutes. So the notion that the military did a crackerjack job with Payne Stewart, but was sluggish in response to 9-11 is just not borne out by the facts.

Next we comes a question about Bush's personal response on 9-11. Once again we get the creepy music; this documentary makes no bones about who's the villain of the piece, and it ain't Osama. We're shown a clip of Cheney talking about the Secret Service yanking him from the White House, and this is contrasted with Bush sitting in the classroom reading to the children, with I guess the implication being that the Secret Service screwed up by not pulling the President from the room. One of the Jersey girls helpfully asks, "If people fell down on the job, by not informing those who were in leadership positions, who had the power to do something, why were we not looking at our protocols so we could fix it going forward."

Of course, one assumes that the standing order since 9-12 is that if there is a terrorist attack again, the President is immediately to be pulled away from what he's doing. And as for that "power to do something", what exactly does she think he could do, run outside and shoot down the hijacked planes with a SAM?

So now we're two "questions" into the movie and they're asking about procedure changes in the event of a terrorist attack?

When Truthers Attack

The Paul Joseph Watson attack on Debunking 911 is reposted on 911 blogger. It is drawing the usual paranoid comments, including Killtown being accused of being a shill. This post takes the prize for paranoia though:

I've been looking into these guys. A couple links. Very odd!!!

This is really far out. Check this. We protested at the debut of United 93 in NYC, and the anti-loose change crew was there handing our flyers attacking the movement. We saw one of the same people at the GZ - 9/11/06 rally. I got really curious, and started looking into it. First of all, I found a picture of the guy, his name is Mark, at Flickr.

It turns out that the anti-9/11 folks took lots of pictures that day, and put them up at Flickr with really negative tag lines. You can look at all of them here.

Later doing a search for these people online I found this forum post.

It is written by Gravy 2004, who also posted pictures to Flickr. Notice the website where the comment is posted. The James Randi Educational Foundation. Skeptics? More like an obvioius CIA front. James Randi has been debunking pseudo-science for the last 40 years, writing dozens of books about ghosts, big foot, and and UFOs. That in itself is no problem. But it is apparent that his intention is only to debunk popular myths, and not to question any institutional deceptions. He promotes a mainstream version of skepticsm that allows its followers to feel insightful, and yet safe. No paradigm shift required.

Now here's the catch, and I mean no disrespect, but am only relating what I read at Wikipedia. William Rodriguez used to work very closely with James Randi. Rodriguez was specifically adept at making himself welcome in a community to be debunked with the intention of researching is weaknesses from within. I really don't know what to say. I wonder what Rodriguez has to say about his old mentor.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I honestly don't believe that these people could claim to be skeptical and generate such a pile of weak analysis. This effort appears to have emerged very recently, with many sites popping up at once in a coordinated attack. I suppose that its possible that they are just serious mainstream history and science nerds. But their work is not nearly academic enough to suggest a seriously skeptical approach. I suspect something a bit more nefarious.

Let's all keep our eyes on these guys, and start tearing down their crappy science. Let's tear down some of our crappy science while we're at it. TRUTH!!!

International Truth Movement

Ooh, we are being watched as we post in our CIA sponsored websites. Do they realize how stupid they sound? People make blogs and websites for subjects as trivial as pet clothing and cookie recipes, do they really think the only way someone would start discussing one of the most significant events of the 20th century is if the CIA organized it?

And if our science is so "crappy" why is it the only thing they can attack is our grammar?

Idiocy: Part II

The Loosers continue their self absorbed video series (because remember, the 5th anniversary of 9/11 was about them, not the victims). I just about lost my breakfast when they showed Jason Bermas in his underwear, and it is over an hour long, so I don't know if I can stomach the whole thing. If anyone else can let me know how it ends.

Looser Forum Post of the Day

Check out the disgusting way the Loosers respond to an NYPD officer whose sister died on 9-11.

Frank comes in and says his piece:

You kids make me sick. I was extremely close to the Twin Towers on Sep. 11th when this horrendous crime took place, and you honestly think OUR GOVERNMENT planned this attack? How dare you, you f*cking dolt.

I am digusted, my sister died on Sep. 11th. How dare you say that you speak for the families that lost loved ones that day. You are speaking for an idiot who honestly thinks our leaders, caused this. Read that line one more time. He thinks that OUR Government is responsible for the deaths on Sep. 11th.

You people who help this moron are pissing on the victums of that awful day. Good job.

Okay, that's a pretty tough post, pretty emotional. But does that excuse subhuman scum Roxdog, who responds:

Man, do you really expect people to take you seriously when you write sh*t like this? It's hard to feel sorry for such a freaking jerkoff. I understand your loss. But that doesn't excuse your sh*tty attitude or your complete and utter lack of depth. We are doing this because people like you don't have the balls to do it. YOU ARE P*SSING ON YOUR SISTERS GRAVE WHEN YOU POST BS LIKE THIS. YOU ARE P*SSING ON YOUR FELLOW POLICE MEN AND WOMEN WHO DIED FROM BOMBS PLACED INSIDE THE WTC WHEN YOU PASS JUDGEMENT ON US IN YOUR SLEEP.

Loose Change: Dedicated to the lives we lost on 9/11/01.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Another Good Article from the Left

Joanne Wypijewski, writing in Counterpunch:

Some of the black T-shirts told me they believed that if only Americans did the research there would be a mass uprising in this country and all the other things I was talking about would suddenly be on the table. But about a third of Americans already believes 9/11 was an inside job. I asked if they really thought "Do the Research" was a galvanizing slogan, to which I was corrected that the more popular slogan was "Ask Questions, Demand Answers". To which the neophyte might ask, What questions? And then be answered with a barrage of details about NORAD and the burning point of steel and what Larry Silverstein said about Building 7 and what a firefighter said he'd heard at what hour and how there'd been "repairmen" working on a World Trade Center elevator in the weeks or days before the attack. At this point the neophyte walks off, with literature and a DVD, never to be heard from again. One of the people in the black T-shirts agreed that it was a complex message to lay on people, but the fault lay, naturally, with the people. "It's not a sound bite, and people have been conditioned to hear only sound bites."

Highly recommended!

Alex Jones' Minions Fight Debunkers

Mostly by criticizing spelling and grammar errors.

Paul Watson, apparently one of Jones' flunkies, also has the nerve to take on 9-11 Deniers Speak:

In the links section, the website carries a You Tube video of Loose Change guru Dylan Avery's appearance on the Jack Blood Show. Mirroring other reactionary hit piece videos against the 9/11 truth movement, the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event.

Of course, Avery and Blood appear rude and unsympathetic to the victims because they are in that clip.

He blows one detail here:

We urge our readers to comb through this website for themselves - it won't be long before you run across bizarre leftfield arguments (at one point the collapse of the twin towers is compared to two pool balls hitting each other), confounding statements that are an affront to the English language, and outright errors concerning the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.

Of course the billiard ball analogy was made by 9-11 Denier Judy Wood, and is still linked on the "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial website.

SLC: Quarter Million Served

And three quarters of a million pages.

Thanks! Yes, we're piggy-backing off Dylan and the Loosers, but we are definitely providing the information people need to debunk Loose Change. If we were selling their warmed over conspiracy crap and charging $17.95/DVD I might feel embarrassed.

Abby Takes On the Deniers

I've highlighted this video before, but it's a pleasure to watch all over again, especially the part where Abby Scott takes down Les Dorkman, or whatever his name is at 12:00.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Pull It

One of the more amusing mythologies of the 9/11 denial movement is the claim that the phrase "pull it" is an industry term for demolishing a building with explosives. This was created, of course, so that Larry Silverstein could have casually confessed to being involved in the plot during an interview with PBS. There is, however, absolutely nothing to show that this is in fact true, but that has not kept the conspiracy geeks from repeating it to themselves so many times that it self-referentially becomes widespread knowledge that the term "pull it" refers to controlled demolition.

If you ask any CD expert though, you will find out that it doesn't. Brett Blanchard, from explains:

We have never once heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.
But hey, who are you going to believe, someone who has been working in the industry for years, or a retired philosophy professor?

The new Popular Mechanics book addresses this same issue on page 57:

Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground.
Now 9/11 Myths has come up with an excellent example of this in action. From a video of the demolition of WTC 6:

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six. Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations... <”going up”? hard to hear>... Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

OK, so let's summarize. The conspiracy theorists have absolutely nothing but their own religious fervor to show that "pull it" means to blow up a building. We, on the other hand, have multiple expert and reliable sources to show that it does not. So why exactly do these "truth seekers" keep on believing this?

I think it is time to "pull" this theory.

Richard Andrew Grove Will Go Nuts Over This

JFK predicted 9-11!

President Kennedy, known for separating his life into compartments, would enclose words and numbers inside circles and boxes. Events long after his death give one doodle an unintended chill: A small circle with the numbers "9-11" contained within. Just to the lower left on the page, the word "conspiracy" is underlined.

Hat Tip: Rob.

Meanwhile, Blue Crab Boulevard has discovered a closeup of the "face on Mars".

More Noam

Chomsky's rapidly becoming one of my heroes. A Looser decided to try to "recruit" Noam via email. It's a hilarious exchange, notable for the lack of evidence provided by the Looser and the quite forceful put-down in response:

I can only repeat what I wrote. I am, first of all, amazed at the extraordinary arrogance and fervor of the self-described "truth movement," which insists that I shift my priorities to theirs, something I can not imagine doing; and second, at the complete absence of argument, exemplified again in your letter, which gives not one single bit of evidence nor any argument. I'm surprised that you do not see that.

I am also surprised by your willingness to accept the pathetic wailing about the persecution of supporters of the "truth movement." Even if we were to accept what they report as correct -- for which they provide no evidence -- it would not amount to a row of pins as compared with what is standard, and expected, among those who devote themselves to combatting crimes of state. And what has happened to Griffin, Falk, or anyone else who has taken a stand on these matters?

If you want to engage in these quite riskless efforts, rather than other issues that are, in my judgment, far more important (for reasons I've explained in detail in print), and do indeed carry risks, then by all means do so. I cannot dream of having the extraordinary arrogance and self-righteousness to suggest that you change course and adopt my priorities.

You tell 'em, Noam!

The Most Interesting Work on the CT

Is being done by the no-planers. Don't get me wrong, they're the nuttiest of the nuts, but they are doing some fascinating stuff. Here's a detailed look at Flight 175, the second plane into the World Trade Center. It's a fascinating glimpse at the mind of a CTer.

In order to analyse the film and stills photography the exact camera position, aircraft position, aircraft attitude and sun position were reproduced in Flight Simulator to provide a visual reference image to judge the respective UA175 picture.

Because, you see, Microsoft Flight Simulator is reality, and the pictures have to be judged as to whether they fit reality. Simply amazing stuff!

The Debate

J. R. Dunn, at the American Thinker, continues to pound Jim Fetzer into the ground. This fight should have been called a long time ago.

At the end of my first response I set certain conditions. Any commentary was to be a logical, succinct, and coherent analysis of every statement I have made here, and in my article as well, following the example I have given you. I have no interest in any more factoids, none of this “I saw it someplace on the Net” stuff. Fully sourced, fully researched material – that is the minimum acceptable response.

That’s not what we have here, needless to say. I admit I wasn’t really expecting it either.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

With Friends Like These...

I was scanning the "Scholars" home page and noticed some new articles defending Steven Jones from charges of anti-Semitism, and couldn't help but notice the irony in two separate articles, both from The first from Joel Skousen (emphasis mine):

Goldberg is a conspiracy debunker whose business is to go through the most bizarre of conspiracy theories so as to make it easy to debunk them. Naturally, he focuses upon the small minority of conspiratorialists who believe this is all a Zionist conspiracy, and he plays it up as if everyone who believes in a globalist NWO conspiracy is also an anti-Semite. The origin of anti-Semitic conspiracy movement was Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby.

The second article, with the not so subtle title "Are Zionists Behind Banning Of Truthful 911 Scientist?" (this is where the irony comes in) is by Chris Bollyn, the reporter for the American Free Press, founded by none other than the very Willis Carto they were talking about:

After interviewing Jones for a brief 20 minutes, Fabrizio said goodbye to Jones and turned the remainder of the hour over to a discussion of conspiracy theories with two Jewish professors, a Robert Goldberg from the University of Utah and Gary Fine from Northwestern.

Gee, I don't know how anyone could get the idea that the 9/11 conspiracy movement could be connected to anti-semitism...

9-11 Denial Is Not Going Away

I wondered a couple of weeks ago if the interest that 9-11 Denial seemed to build over the summer would collapse after the fifth anniversary had passed. So far that doesn't seem to have happened. Oh, we certainly saw a sudden spike in interest on the weekend of 9-11-06, with traffic surging to an incredible 6,000 visitors on 9-10, followed the next day by 16,000. And we did see traffic decline every day after that for the next five days.

But. The last five days traffic has stabilized at about 2700-3100 visitors per day, which is a little over a thousand more visitors per day than we were getting in late August/early September. Remember, we get a disproportionate amount of our traffic from Google searches for "Loose Change", so we're a pretty good barometer of interest in the Loosers.

Terrific Article on Conspiracy Theories in General and 9-11 Theories in Particular

I didn't see this one over the weekend, but it's well worth perusing:

In response to this testimony, many conspiracy theorists reply that scientists who offer evidence disputing the conspiracy theory are part of the conspiracy itself. And the more evidence they offer in favour of the official version, the more strongly they are connected with the conspiracy. As Keeley puts it "conspiracy theories are the only theories for which evidence against them is actually construed as evidence in favour of them."

More Photos from Ground Zero, 9-11-06

I found a couple more sets from folks attending the Memorial/Denier Rally. This set is terrific, and includes some acidic commentary on the "Blackshirts". Here's her comment about this jerk:

Many in the crowd treated the anniversary as a big party, and walked about with a self-satisfied demeanor. It was like they were attending a Star Trek convention: none of them showed any signs of remorse or mourning. Most were just enjoying the moment.

Here's Jason Bermas:

No doubt demonstrating how he examines the evidence.

If You Could Give Three People a Truth Pill About 9-11

Who would it be?

Stolen from a great post by GreyL at Democratic Underground.

My answers:

1. Dick Cheney. Closing off the conspiracy theory.
2. Alex Jones. Get the looniest on the record.
3. Steven Jones. Everybody knows he's playing a game.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

We the Sheeple?

Edward Feser, on Tech Central Station, has a rather interesting, and rather philosophical, essay up on 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is well worth a read, and even has a polite reference to us. An excerpt to get you started:

The problems with such theories have been pretty thoroughly exposed by now. Here is just a sample: If the aim of the conspirators was to motivate the American people to go to war, why wouldn't the crashing of airplanes into the World Trade Center suffice? What was the point of secretly placing explosives throughout the towers - no small task - and thereby risking exposure? If the government was really willing and able to orchestrate such a massive conspiracy here at home, why couldn't or wouldn't it also carry out the far easier task of planting evidence of WMD in faraway Iraq? If the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes were faked, how did the government find people capable of so perfectly mimicking the voices of the victims, and how did they acquire the detailed knowledge of their personal lives that would enable the hoaxers to deceive so many of the victims' loved ones and friends?

Automated Missiles Systems at the Pentagon

I noticed this interview with Jim Fetzer. This guy is so repetitive that there is very little original here. He doesn't even bother to change the wording of his lies. You got to love the psychadelic look though. I imagine Uncle Fetzer sitting back with a joint playing the Beatles tunes from his radio show. In any case, one notable thing is Fetzer is now repeating the "automated missiles at the Pentagon" myth:

Host: Now I am going to skip back to the Pentagon that we talked about. Isn’t that, like the heaviest fortified… they’ve got like, isn’t that like automatic weapons that go off when something gets in the area?

Fetzer: Sure. They have automated anti-aircraft missile systems and so forth. So, you can’t imagine having all these hundreds of billions of dollars to play with and those brass hats not making sure they’re safe.

Host: Yeah

Fetzer: Even if no one else in the world (unintelligible).

Host: That’s the Pentagon. That’s the symbol that shows our strength, our status. That is… You said they’re automatic weapons. When something comes into the area, boom, (snaps fingers) they’re gone

Fetzer: Unless they’re directed to stand down.

This often repeated claim, is of course baseless, as I have addressed in my JOD911 paper (shameless self plug). Ironically, the best evidence I could come up with against this, was a picture I stole from the Loosers from their recent "research" trip to DC.

Reagan National Airport is less than 2 miles away from the Pentagon. For some reason these invisible missile batteries don't seem to be automatically shooting down all those airplanes.

Fetzer also repeats the "hundreds of billions of dollars" of stolen gold from the World Trade Center claim. Geez guy, even the Loose Change boys have dropped that claim from the newest version of their movie. Get with the times.

Moron Hani Hanjour

To listen to the Deniers, you'd think that Hani Hanjour was the worst pilot of all time. But while re-reading the 9-11 Commission Report again the other day, this paragraph jumped out at me:

Rented small planes and took a trip to Gaithersburg, MD? But I thought "he could not fly at all"?

Damian Penny Reviews Debunking 9-11

Our buddy Damian covers Popular Mechanics' new book:

For people who are on the verge of joining the "9/11 truth movement" but haven't quite made the leap, however, the book may bring them back from the edge. Debunking 9/11 Myths illustrates how the conspiracy theorists use pseudoscience, rumours, half-truths, logical fallacies, quotes taken out of context and blatant lies to make their case.

The Loosers Prepare for 9-11-06

Here's a video of them preparing for their trip to New York City. Hilariously, this is part 1 of 5 videos (!). Something of a vanity project; the most interesting footage is of their dog, named "Justice".

Those FEMA Concentration Camps

Here's a guided tour:

Funny how an administration which (according to the paranoids) wouldn't hesitate to kill 3,000 of its own civilians, and which is currently plotting to round us all up like cattle, still allows videos like this to circulate on the internet.

Monday, September 18, 2006

The World's Stupidest Pentagon Attack Theory

Back when Army vet and Loose Change producer Korey Rowe speculated that the Pentagon might have been attacked by the Javelin anti-tank missile, I thought that nobody else could come up with a theory anywhere near as stupid.

Once again, I must admonish myself for underestimating the imagination and sheer idiocy of conspiracy theorists. You would think I would learn. From tonight's interview with Jim Fetzer at the 1:18 mark:

James in Salt Lake City: Hi, Dr. Fetzer this is James Valarian, with Utah Rally for Peace. I don't know if you remember me or not. I called in before. I wanted to let you know, that my own research has discovered that the military has a weapon called the direct strike hard target weapon, nicknamed Big Blue, which is a 30,000 lb missile, which has the capability to blast through thick concrete walls, what happened at the Pentagon. And I believe that that's what happened, and that it was delivered by a C-130 which was in the vicinity and in Griffin's book, there is a radio report from the pilot of a C-130 verifying that the so called plane had crashed into the Pentagon. And uh...

Fetzer: Well that's an interesting conjecture. Now there was a C-130 up there, and I think it was coordinating things. And I believe that the plane that it was probably under control from that C-130. I think that's all correct. I would be surprised if that specific weapon that you described had been used at the Pentagon. The original hit point, you can find photographs of it on two different websites go to a public issues website I have maintained for years. Scroll down the menu bar to 9/11 websites and the second one says 20 studies plus. Click on that 20 studies plus, you'll find immediately a photograph of the hitpoint it's rather small, it's only about 10 feet high and maybe 16-17 feet wide. There's unbroken...

James in Salt Lake City: That's what this missile does. It makes a small hole.

Fetzer: Yeah. Too small for the weapon you are describing. The amount of damage wasn't great enough.
Wow. I am stunned, we actually found a theory that is too stupid for Jim Fetzer. That has got to be a first. Although he still calls it "interesting conjecture". Is there any type of of conjecture he doesn't find interesting?

For those of you who aren't that familiar with military ordinance. This is Big Blue.

No, that is not a missile, although he is correct in stating it is dropped out of a C-130. And as for the claim that it is used to punch small holes in concrete. Here is a description of its affects:

The BLU-82 combines a watery mixture of ammonium nitrate and aluminum with air, then ignites the mist for a huge explosion that incinerates everything within up to 600 yards. The shock wave can be felt miles away.

The BLU-82 uses about six times the amount of ammonium nitrate explosive that Timothy McVeigh used in the bomb that blew up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.

Well I am glad the members of Utah Rally for Peace are out there finding the truth.

Update: Here is a video of this type of bomb. I am surprised the Loose Change boys didn’t include it in one of the versions of there movie. They seem to like things that go boom.

Uncle Fetzer is Really Really Angry

Pat posted earlier on Jim Fetzer's debate in the American Thinker (which is kind of like Jessica Simpson writing in Foreign Affairs to begin with). I was listening to a interview with Fetzer this evening, and apparently he is really mad about the response to his response, which will soon have a subsequent response.

Now he has today, published a response to me, that is even worse than the original. And here is the irony Barbara Jean, his whole piece. His original was claiming that part of the problem with journalism today is not just that journalists have bias, it is that journalists are ignorant of their own subject and he was supposedly going on to demonstrate how I was ignorant. That I was suggesting that an A-3 Skywarrior might have been involved in the attack at the Pentagon instead of a Boeing 747. Well he ignores the fact that I have a tremendous amount of evidence that substantiates that. He ignores it completely. And his response today just reeks with venom and hostility. Anyone who imagines this guy is remotely objective or remotely competent is going to learn another thing. I am drafting a response to him right now. It’s ridiculous. He’s biased and he’s ignorant. And nevertheless he’s a journalist out there getting stuff out, and the editors, the editors aren’t even paying attention to what is going on here, because they could have easily done research that would have demonstrated that most of what he was publishing was intellectual rubbish.

Uhh, speaking of rubbish. How about a "professor" basing his research off of the words of Karl Schwarz, a proven fraud, articles published in the American Free Press, a neo-Nazi propaganda newspaper, and then backed up by a radio interview with a man who installs kitchen counters for CIA hitmen based on Charles Bronson movies. Now that is what I call intellectual rubbish.

The Strange Saga of Jeffrey Farrer

Those of you who have been following this blog for a while have probably noticed that I have a hobby of following the Full Members of ST911 (yes, I know, I should collect stamps or something). Originally in May, I brought up the issue that Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member, even though he was a lab manager, and not a professor. Then in August, after Judy Wood complained to Jim Fetzer, he was demoted to a Student Member. A week or two later, after Judy Wood left he was then promoted to Jeffrey Farrer PhD, a Full Member.

Now only a few weeks later he has quit the organization entirely.

Farrer, who manages BYU's Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory, sent an e-mail asking the group to remove his name from the Web site on Sept. 7, hours before BYU administrators informed Jones they were placing him on paid leave. Farrer had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the content of He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though he said he would continue to work with the group.

"If it's a scholarly Web site, I don't think they should have a political viewpoint," Farrer said. "I thought there was too much finger-pointing and maybe a little too much speculation that wasn't based on confirmable evidence."

Geez, these guys have more turnover than the night shift at Burger King.

The No-Planers Go Disco

This is considered evidence on the No-Planer side:

Hey, man, I'm convinced. Convinced that you guys are all nuts!

Palm Beach Dems Cancel Loose Change Screening

Too late to prevent getting egg on their faces, however.

It's nonsense, of course. In early 2005, an article in the magazine Popular Mechanics shredded the conspiracy theories. So, since Democrats - not to mention a number of Independents and Republicans - have many credible reasons for disagreeing with President Bush's response to 9/11, why would Democrats want to look so incredible by indulging debunked conspiracy theorists? Why would County Democratic Chairman Wahid Mahmood call the screening part of the "educational process?" By that standard, a documentary supporting Holocaust denial would be part of the "educational process."

Hmmm. Wahid Mahmood, you say?

Deniers Go Nuts as Bush Mentions Explosives in WTC

Here's the transcript which is causing excitement in the 9-11 Denier's ranks:

(Note: See update below)

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Of course, Bush is referring to the planes themselves as "explosives" here. The part about "high enough" may be a little confusing at first, but I think his point is that if the buildings had been struck lower, it is possible that helicopter rescuers may have been able to pluck people off the roof and the sides of the building.

Of course, that is not preventing massive celebrations in the 9-11 Denial Movement:

Democratic Underground:

There you have it. Bush admits to now knowing explosives were placed in the WTC towers. He can’t escape the truth anymore (9-11 Truth Movement is spreading like wildfire) and looks for the nearest Patsy, thereby placing the blame of explosives squarely on Khalid and Al Queda (but we really know who Al CIA-duh is don’t we?)

9-11 Blogger:

Bush HESITATES twice and gives away more than he is saying... he uses REVERSE LOGIC.. if the explosives are planted HIGH in the building.. there are LESS floors above where people can get trapped. i.e. If the OPERATIVES wanted to MINIMIZE the bloodbath they would WANT TO plant explosives HIGH in the building.

You know, I wouldn't find that convincing except for the all-caps, which prove to me that this is serious stuff indeed. ;)

Update: Kudos to folks in the JREF forums who pointed out that this does not necessarily refer to 9-11, and may refer to other planned attacks. Note this preceding paragraph to the one I quoted:

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

So this may refer to post-911 attacks that were thwarted.

Uncle Fetzer in the American Thinker?

Sheesh, guys, Fetzer doesn't qualify:

Evidence the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 747 [sic], as the government claims, for example, is extensive and definitive. Here are three points from the first piece anyone coming to Scholar’s web site might be expected to read, which is titled, “Why doubt 9/11?”, namely:

Yep, Uncle Fetzer thinks the official story is that a 747 hit the Pentagon.

* The Pentagon’s own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when it was shown on “The Factor”; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

In this paragraph he gets the plane right, but what is the relevance of the relationship between the length of the plane and the height of the building?