posted October 02, 2006 12:16 PM            

"Apparently," wrote Taibbi, "every third person in the United States thinks [President] George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks."

Taibbi's estimate, shockingly, may be accurate. According to a September Scripps Howard/Ohio University Poll's survey of 1,010 adults, 36 percent of respondents overall said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop these attacks "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

Sixteen percent of poll respondents said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent of respondents expressed suspicion that the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was struck not by a skyjacked airliner but by a military cruise missile.

Those holding such conspiratorial views, the poll found, were disproportionately young, members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education, and Democrats.

"If large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost," wrote Taibbi.

"At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific," wrote another thoughtful left-liberal, editor of The Progressive Magazine Matthew Rothschild, who like Taibbi found that by questioning these conspiratorial views he had "kicked a hornet's nest."

"It is more than passing strange," wrote Rothschild, "that progressives who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11."

Rothschild is half right. He and his fellow "progressives" have, e.g., irrationally embraced deceitful demagogue Al Gore and ignored the many scientists who dispute Gore's extremist climate doomsaying, as we documented in the July NewsMax Magazine. Rothschild has compromised his claim to rationality by regularly publishing the likes of Marxist historian Howard Zinn. [Editor's Note: Get the Report "Al Gore Spins Global Warming" by clicking here]

But in his September 11, 2006, dismissal of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Rothschild references scientists and engineers who have punched hundreds of holes in the Swiss cheese claims of conspiracy zealots. Among these zealots are Claremont School of Theology emeritus philosophy professor David Ray Griffin and Brigham Young University physics professor and cold fusion specialist Steven E. Jones.

Popular Mechanics Magazine in its March 2005 cover story and August 2006 book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to The Facts (foreword by Senator John McCain) critiques 20 conspiracy claims in great detail. One fact among many: DNA from nearly everyone aboard the airliner that hit the Pentagon was identified from the wreckage.

Taibbi cuts down these zealots with a sword of logic. The conspiracy theorists, he argues, claim President Bush somehow led a conspiracy of "tens of thousands" of operatives, missile users, demolition explosive experts, and surviving airline passengers. But neither evidence nor any leaker has exposed this conspiracy. If this was faked to justify war with Iraq, why not make the attackers Iraqis? Why kill Republican-funding Wall Streeters? The unverified claims of conspiracy theorists, Taibbi argues, simply do not create a plausible, coherent plot that anybody more worldly than a fourth grader can take seriously.

The more important questions: why have so many people eagerly swallowed these conspiracy theories? And what does their fanaticism portend for our society?

The Scripps Howard/Ohio University Poll found that a record-high 54 percent of respondents said they were "more angry with the federal government" than they used to be. That anger seems related to growing suspicion that government has deceived the public about the War in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and other political policies. If government is no longer believed, then the hidden agendas alleged by conspiracy theories offer an alternative reality.

Democratic politicians seeking to regain political power in this November's elections have encouraged such "Bush lied, people died" paranoia to stoke anger.

Former President Bill Clinton in his attacks a week ago against Fox News reporter Chris Wallace evoked Hillary Clinton's accusations against a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that purportedly controls American politics. (In fact, the Right is a wholly inept gaggle, at best only half-vast and half right-wing, Republicans now being almost as much in favor of ever-larger government as are liberal Democrats.)

The United States, argues Taibbi, "has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes ... that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers."

Democrats and their leftwing media allies have already, in case it is needed, been refurbishing another favorite conspiracy – how this November's election will be stolen, just like all previous ones Democrats lost. Why accept voter rejection when your radical Manichaean reality can concoct a fantasyland where leftists (always good) lose only because right-wingers (always evil) rig elections?

This increasingly paranoid leftwing worldview is undermining democracy, patriotism, and civilized society. Mere partisan differences are being turned into ideological alienation, distrust, division, demonization, hatred and even anti-Semitism. Mere politics is becoming uncompromising warfare as scorched-earth radical extremists have seized control of the Democratic Party. If such irrational Shiite Democrats win control of Congress in November, God help America.

Even when sleeping, Democratic dreams apparently now reflect the "hidden distress and unpleasantness of the liberal mind," according to researcher Kelly Bulkeley of John F. Kennedy University near Berkeley, California.

posted October 03, 2006 02:51 AM              

10-3-6

The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...

Dear Mr. Carrol,

I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official account" of 9/11.

"Let us dip our toe again into" a couple of the bogus rebuffs posed by the "experts" at Popular Mechanics.

Pop Mech- "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns.

The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns.

It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building.

Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics.

And that is without insulation.

The WTC beams were insulated.

Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires.

There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved.

I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan.

I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded acceleration of gravity).

That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time as the rock.

This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER!

And this sir, is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem.

And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically around them.

The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually untouched.

It is a paradox.

Watch the videos.

Study the evidence.

Talk to the experts and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.

And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and publicity hacks have posed........to make the painfully obvious physical evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree.........

.....but suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

Sincerely,
Eric Harrington
Ojai, Ca

posted October 03, 2006 04:26 AM              

Thank You Rainbow

posted October 03, 2006 09:04 AM              

https://www.wtcproof.com/

posted October 03, 2006 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Kelly Bulkeley of John F. Kennedy University near Berkeley, California.

---

"Near Berkeley." That's funny. Geographically correct, yes, but why would the geography matter? Trying to link him to a real academic locale?

posted October 03, 2006 12:41 PM            

It is ironic, however, that Rainbow used this former Soldier's letter to support her own love of the conspiracty theory yet when a Soldier publishes an article in support of the war, rebuilding of Iraq and likewise, it is labeled as a coerced document forced by the US Military.

What I found most amusing concerning Chavez's letter was this last paragraph -

"As you can see, Im not your typical conspiracy theorist I
actually have a good job! I thought at first I might send you this
from an anonymous email address, but you know what now you know Im
not just some stupid kid.
Thanks for taking the time to read.

Respectfully,

Lauro "LJ" Chavez
Director of Information Security
Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions"

_____________________

He actually puts down the other conspiracy theorists as not having a good job and being stupid kids as he qualifies himself as being neither LMAO...

posted October 03, 2006 12:45 PM            

It would also behoove you to post the entire letter (indicated he was right in the middle of the action can translate to him actually BEING at the Trade Center or Pentagon while he was actually in Florida)
http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php

I also don't think that calling him a "whistle blower" is correct. That would indicate he was still in the midst of the conspiracy and then "spoke out"

AG -

Once again your reasoning comes across as being way off. Stating "Berkely" provides a point of reference. Not all people know where the Uni is located. Are you aware of every college location in the US or are you just being smug because you can't find anything else to tear apart?

posted October 03, 2006 02:30 PM            

Cute - let's see BR alluded to it after you did, then Rainbow did it.. LOL...

I suppose if you can't prove us (or me) wrong, you have to then use the "You don't understand anything because you are dumb and unable to write a cohesive sentence"

posted October 03, 2006 02:40 PM              

Hey Pid,

Shouldn't that be "conspiracy"...sorry girl, just being perverse...and maybe a little ironic.

Seriously though guys, what is it with the mis-spelling of words in the States, e.g. color, humor..(where did the u go).

I have often wondered why that is????

Anyone

posted October 03, 2006 02:43 PM            

The location of Bulkeley's part time job is of NO consequence to the story whatsoever. Why is it included? Well, there's two reasons.

1. People have no idea of where JFK University is, because no one's heard of it. I live 20 miles away from it, and even I have never heard of it prior to JWhop's silly article.

2. Berkeley is a well respected academic school. It wasn't enough to say that the school was in the Bay Area, CA. Nor was it ok to base it's proximity on the more major cities of Oakland and San Francisco. No, they had to say it's near Berkeley to try to garner some credibility.

If you understood what I was saying, then you wouldn't have reason to comment, because it is a very poignant observation.

quote:

---

I suppose if you can't prove us (or me) wrong, you have to then use the "You don't understand anything because you are dumb and unable to write a cohesive sentence"

---

It's true that you do have syntax problems. You substitute words for other words and so forth (i.e. "and" for "are" is a recent one I saw). You also run into trouble when you want to think someone is saying something when, in actuality, they're not.

posted October 03, 2006 02:58 PM            

I have pointed out other people's misuse of words, misspelling and such when they make it a point of pointing out mine. For the most part I could care less about spelling errors as we are all in a hurry. I, myself, am working on a PDLA stat spreadsheet along with typing this thing, working on an agenda for today and IM'ing my husband.

Not everything will come out perfect, but who the hell cares? Oh wait, that's it... the KS club cares because rather than discuss creditionals or a study breakdown we should try and discredit the university a man attended, make fun of the geographic indicator used and then since Sue couldn't get me on the "childish" remark (as the word I pointed out was argument) you'll now have to band together and pretend that my syntax, spelling etc.. is just ALL wrong.

OMG.. what is it with you people? You act so self-righteous, holier than thou commiting the same mistakes but lining up to throw rocks when you can. Yep, that is enlightened.

And you Sue.. you WOULD support someone like BR, someone that has consistently called people some of the most racially biased names (but hides behind his sexual orientation as as excuse to be racial). I noticed you haven't been around here for a while.. what's the matter? Did you need to wait until there was enough blood in the water with your band of merry KS peeps attacking another conservative for you to come out?

I suppose if I had any respect for the lot of you then I would feel slightly sad, but knowing who you all are and the immature game of who is let in and who isn't...well, you all pretty much know how I feel about you.

Too funny.. LOL...

*** edited to add**

My problem is NOT syntax, my problem is typing to fast and not reading what I am typing since I am working on other items.

posted October 03, 2006 03:14 PM              

Sorry, didnt mean to irk you girl...

posted October 03, 2006 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

because rather than discuss creditionals or a study breakdown we should try and discredit the university a man attended, make fun of the geographic indicator used

---

In this case it's not the university he attended, it's the university he's an adjunct professor at.

quote:

---

OMG.. what is it with you people? You act so self-righteous, holier than thou commiting the same mistakes but lining up to throw rocks when you can. Yep, that is enlightened.

---

Hey! I let a hell of a lot of your writing errors go. You brought up people mispelling as a way to try to attack a person's intellect. Now people are self-righteous when they point out that you happen to do the same thing? Don't think that I missed your mispelling of credentials in your first quote above, but I don't need to mention these things when I get what you're talking about.

quote:

---

Did you need to wait until there was enough blood in the water with your band of merry KS peeps attacking another conservative for you to come out?

---

So you don't think this conservative isn't attempting to attack the dems? That's interesting. When we go quiet, you get loud... very loud. Your comments are unbelievable when you're not being challenged.

quote:

---

knowing who you all are and the immature game of who is let in and who isn't...well, you all pretty much know how I feel about you.

---

posted October 03, 2006 03:31 PM            

KS could never make me feel like a victim. It just spoke volumes about the type of person that you are. When I decide to form an exlusionary club where I bash on a site that I frequent and act like a hypocrite you are welcome to throw it in my face

Until then, keep up the good work of using someone's Sun Sign or chart to either put them down or tell them what's wrong with them.

posted October 03, 2006 04:00 PM            

Secondly, CENTCOM is one of the two headquarters that are not within its area of operations. It is at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has relatively recently been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar.

Thirdly, His MOSs doesn't jive with him sitting in front of a radar. The MOSs that are listed for him are of Signal type. Not Aviation or Military Intelligence by any nature. If the exercise was classified as Top Secret and it hasnt passed the required time limit to declassify. He committed espionage and you aided him by posting it here without it being declassified.

For your information here is the definition of espionage. Espionage is the practice of obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.

Finally, He wasnt stationed at NORAD at all so how could he even known what was going on there, NORAD is at Tyndall AFB, (Panama City) FL. He was at MacDill AFB, FL.

If your going to post stuff from someone that is former military please make sure their credentials are verified before you post them. I will chew them up and spit them out if you dont.

posted October 03, 2006 05:33 PM              

***Oh big bad bear....I am soooo scared of you***

Also Bear....seriously, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS ME (man, talk about getting carried away with POWER? )

posted October 03, 2006 05:38 PM            

Well.. there is always hope now isn't there?

posted October 03, 2006 05:43 PM            

I only post when I need, you should see that by now. My wife doesnt come crying to me for support especially when its you posting. You arent a threat. She can take care of herself. I posted this because you posted something from a guy that was in the military. Then got all offended and upset when I presented facts about it. Dont worry about my authority just swallow the fact that I post what I needed to say. Go back to posting useless and unverified information.

posted October 03, 2006 06:01 PM              

I've got it!

He was tortured beyond human endurance by "leftist commie conservative democrats" to come up with something that would back up their claims of a conspiracy.....

Maybe they even had rummy give them some good torture tips.

That's gotta be the only explanation for it...

posted October 24, 2006 01:36 PM            

There is a virulent form of unpatriotism festering in America today. Like an algae bloom that deprives life of oxygen, it starves democracy of the air of reason. It now thrives on what we call the far Left, but like a dead zone off the coast, it moves with the tides.

I am referring to the seditious dementia of conspiracy theories, the death of faith not in some mere administration or Congress but in America itself.

Haven’t you heard? The U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center. Oh, sorry, that’s not right. The planes did knock down those buildings, but the White House was in on it. Oh, no, sorry again, that’s not what happened. It was the Jews. They razed it without leaving any fingerprints — save for the 4,000 Zionist co-conspirators who were tipped off in advance — in order to frame the peace-loving Muslims of al Qaeda. (Those crafty Hebrews are always coming up with clever ways to make Islamic fanatics look bad, like getting blown up.) Bin Laden’s admission that he did it? Well, of course. He’s in on it.

Presumably, Bush’s demolition experts applied the same expertise to the levees in New Orleans. That’s another theory in wide circulation today thanks in no small part to Spike Lee, who gave it a fair airing in an HBO documentary.

The metaphysical, ontological stupidity of all this defies rational rebuttal. It would be like proving I didn’t have unicorn for dinner in late December of 1987.

Here’s a question: How is a president willing — and able! — to bring down the World Trade Center, murdering nearly 3,000 Americans without inspiring a single whistle-blower or attracting a solitary eyewitness, somehow morally or logistically incapable of planting some exculpatory WMDs in Iraq?

As for Spike & Co., what took Bush so long? Why wait for a hurricane? Oh, how he must have yearned, his men and equipment long in place, to cleanse America of the Big Easy. Oh joyous St. Katrina’s Day! And yet, Bush failed to plan for the aftermath in a way that wouldn’t defenestrate his poll numbers.

Stupidity isn’t the right word for these dark imaginings, because some of these conspiracy theorists are very smart people. Nor is it fair to say they are all left-wingers. Indeed, two prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists — Morgan Reynolds and Paul Craig Roberts — worked in Republican administrations and have strong conservative credentials. And let us not forget that in the 1990s, sweaty fingers pointed right-to-left. Under Clinton, it was the United Nations — with its satellite office at the Rose Law Firm — that imposed order with its fleet of black helicopters.

“Conspiracy theorist” isn’t quite right either. These are priests of the Church of Conspiracy, a heresy of Gnostic heresy which holds that man is the ruler of history, the demiurge of all events that befall us. Powerful and unseen forces lurk in the shadows. The conspiracy theorists know they’re out there, even as the enemy’s name changes almost daily: Big Oil, capitalists, Republicans, or perhaps those eternal pullers of mankind’s puppet strings, the Jews.

The masons of dementia build upon a bedrock of one absolute truth: Bad things happen, and someone must be responsible. Upon this bedrock they pile convenient and selective facts like bricks. Contradictory facts are clever lies. When Popular Mechanics debunked 9/11 hokum, the immediate response from conspiratorialists was “cover-up!” and “CIA front!” because in this perverted faith, denying the ultimate truth must be proof of a lie.

This rough beast slouches toward sedition because it assumes not that our leaders are knaves or even mere criminals, but that they are murderous Supermen with no loyalty to nation, decency or law. Our Constitution is a fraud, a charade for the rubes some of us naively call citizens. If you disagree, you’re either fool or “in on it.” In his 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Richard Hofstadter demonstrated that this fever of the mind is as old as America itself and its outbreaks flare up across the ideological landscape. What is so sad and frightening is that this diseased thinking is reaching epidemic proportions. More than a third of Americans believe the U.S. government was likely to have been involved in 9/11.

In the past, when these outbreaks occurred on the political right, liberal hand-wringers fretted about incipient fascism and rising McCarthyism. Today, the best we get from them is a bemused and sterile chuckle.