posted September 13, 2006 12:34 AM              

Anyway, here are a few words from Keith Olberman and his feeling on 9/11......

********************************************************

This hole in the ground

Sept. 11, 2006 | 3:19 p.m. ET

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.

And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who CLAIMS that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here, is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is NO building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction.

"We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere.

They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets.

And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.

There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country.

The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics.

It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth.

Nor did the Democrats.

Nor did the media.

Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

posted September 13, 2006 05:01 PM            

For proof, they cite the fact jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to "melt" steel.

Another proof they cite is shattered windows seen blowing out of the buildings.

Mental giants they aren't...neither metallurgists are they nor are they even conversant in the "Law of Gasses".

For instance, did the steel support columns supporting the towers have to "melt" before they lost enough structural strength they would no longer support the tremendous loads they were supporting? I think not.

Jet fuel burns at approximately 1200*C...that's about 2200* F. But, they say, the "melting" point of steel is about 1500*C or more than 2700*F so the burning jet fuel couldn't have "melted" the steel support beams in the WTC Towers.

Interesting, but irrelevant.

At about 600*C or about 1100*F steel loses about 50% of its structural strength. At about 1000*C or just over 1800*F steel has lost about 90% of its strength.

Last time I looked, 1000*C is less than the temperature of burning jet fuel...1200*C so, at that point the steel support columns of the WTC had lost at least and probably more than 90% of their load bearing strength.

Of course, the so called Scholars for 9/11 Truth...who are putting forth their "proofs" the collapse of the WTC Towers was a US demolition job are mostly not scholars at all. In fact, of the entire group, only 4 are academics in the area of physics or the hard physical sciences. The rest are theologians, psychologists, English professors etc., or not academics at all.

What is certainly true is none of them ever heard of the Law of Gasses. If they had, they would know what shattered and blew the windows out of the towers as they were collapsing...from the top down by the way.

Now, I know these so called academics and probably most of those who believe their BS skipped chemistry and physics...or had their heads somewhere they didn't belong if they were in those classes. Far be it from me to give a detailed explanation of the "Law of Gasses"...Boyles or any other.

But, our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen in a ratio of about 78%/21%...both gasses. Gasses exert equal pressure in every direction when confined. When gasses are heated and occupy the same amount of space..by volume, gasses attempt to expand which produces more pressure in the vessel. If the volume of gas in a given vessel is increased, pressure rises. If the area of a given vessel is decreased and the volume of gas remains the same, pressure rises.

Most of the space in buildings is occupied by air, not furniture, not people but air and the ratios are not even close.

When the floors of the towers started to collapse one after the other on the way down, the trapped air on each floor was suddenly compressed into a much smaller area which caused a sudden and dramatic rise in air pressure which shattered and blew the windows out of the building...one floor at a time. That might look like explosives going off floor by floor but wasn't. We don't even need to factor in the fact the air trapped on each floor was superheated and already exerting abnormal pressure on the glass windows of the towers.

posted September 13, 2006 05:10 PM            

You're brilliance never seems to amaze me- and I'm sure it just kills those leftest wacknuts

~Pidaua

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted September 13, 2006 05:10 PM              

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein

BY:
lifeforce@rockymountains.net

Date Published: 2006-09-06

You’ve got to be lucky to make a four Billion dollar killing on a 6-month investment of 124 Million dollars.

Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks.

That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex.

The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec).

George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO.

According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War.

One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider:

The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

**duh!**

Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion.

Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.

**how about that?**

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks.

The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There’s more.

You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.

From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.

For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem.

Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion.

Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures.

How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy.

**well golly, gee whillikkers! Who'd have thunk it?**

This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

**Zowie!**

How could this have happened?

Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people.

Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:

US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000.

They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center.

Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees.

"All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More on that cozy little relationship later...

http://www.fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?ArticleID=1 0744

posted September 13, 2006 05:24 PM              

Thought you were taking a little respite too, as I hadn't seen you around as of late....but gosh, I should have known that my reappearance would bring you back out...

Good to see you around...old buddy...

posted September 13, 2006 05:49 PM            

No Rainblow, you earned that name all on your own.

But hey, I love how you keep resorting back to your inherent manipulative manner. Instead of saying something outright, you side-step the issues.

Gotta love your little lie about leaving.. then not really leaving, but wait, you took a break- for about 3 days, so all that boo hooing and crying about how I made you leave was really just another attempt for attention by the loser Drama Queen or Hag.. Oh but wait, at least you were home-coming queen in 1906.

posted September 13, 2006 05:58 PM            

"As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition."

Marvelous, so building 7 is on fire, the fire department is fighting the fire and according to another leftist airhead, a demolition team raced into the burning building to set explosives.

It has to be that way because no one and I mean no one with even an ounce of common sense would have preset demolition charges which would go off when the fire got to them.

I find it vastly amusing to see crackpot leftists scrambling around attempting to support their totally insupportable crackpot theories.

More than 30,000 people worked in those buildings...some at night too and I don't mean the security people. So, to hear this crackpot tell his tale, demolition teams were setting explosives, running cables, weakening the support columns which would take weeks...while people were walking around in the towers.

Hey, whattcha doing there? What's that putty like stuff you're attaching to the support columns?

Oh, I'm just inspecting the support columns for rust. This is a new rust inhibitor.

Really? What's the electric cable for?

Oh, the rust inhibitor is electrically activated.

Flash to all crackpot conspiracy theorists. Those who believe Bush is a shape shifting reptilian from planet X.

Who believe Earth is being visited by aliens from Galactic Central. Aliens who are here to expose Bush and the ruling elite and take them back to stand trial in a Galactic Court...to help Earthlings.

Who believe a word of their multitude of the various conspiracy theories.

Stay the hell away from psychiatrists. If they ever get you anywhere near their couch, you'll take a long detour through a mental institution on your way home.

They really are hopeless cases Pid. They readily believe utter, total crackpots and frauds but refuse to believe an army of engineers of all disciplines, chemists, physicists, metallurgists and other hard science disciplines, refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes but believe the words from every set of lying lips.

posted September 13, 2006 06:51 PM            

Thanks for the physics lesson, Jwhop. Any thoughts as to why Building 7 collapsed, too? (I'm thinking it was aliens... )

posted September 13, 2006 07:48 PM              

Glad to be back....

posted September 13, 2006 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Any thoughts as to why Building 7 collapsed, too?

---

Because it was right next to the second tower that collapsed, half on top of it.

posted September 13, 2006 07:59 PM            

(Probably those darned aliens pushed the other one on top of it with a tractor beam. I've got them figured out.)

edit: OMG ISIS! We have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF POSTS!!

posted September 13, 2006 08:14 PM            

I talk to the aliens all the time, and I happen to know that they detest "sameness". It's a religious thing.

Wierdo

posted October 01, 2006 12:18 PM            

Didn't they know that would explode the crackpot theory that it was Bush who attacked the United States on 9/11?

How inconsiderate of them to make leftist democrats and brain dead morons in the entertainment industry look like the idiots they are to have suggested "Bush Did It"...not to mention some morons posing as "Concerned Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

Oh wait, perhaps I can save the day for the brain dead

How about this; Bush did it and that videotape of the Islamic terrorist 9/11 bombers was produced in the White House Communications/Propaganda Dept.

Lights--Camera--Action

GLOBAL JIHAD
Laughing 9/11 bombers
in new al-Qaida video
Tape surfaces showing suicide-pilot pair
at bin Laden headquarters reading last will
Posted: September 30, 2006
11:20 p.m. Eastern

WorldNetDaily.com

Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta

Five years after Mohammed Atta piloted an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center, a videotape has surfaced showing him and fellow 9/11 plotter, Ziad Jarrah, laughing together in Osama bin Laden's Afghan compound as they read their "martyrdom" wills for the camera.

Based on the hour-long video's time date, Atta was in Afghanistan with Jarrah, who hijacked United Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania, on January 18, 2000.

The new information is the first to show Atta at a training camp in Afghanistan and the first to show him together with Jarrah. Experts say it fills in a missing gap in our knowledge of the unfolding plot.

Investigators in the U.S. and Germany have been unable to track Atta after he moved from Hamburg in January 2000. The tape places him in Afghanistan, with bin Laden, at the moment he was given command of the operation and just months before he and Jarrah enrolled in U.S. flight schools.

The high quality video was obtained by the London Times and validated by the newspaper's contacts in al-Qaida and the U.S. It lacks a sound track and efforts at lip reading the pair as they speak has been unsuccessful.

The video shows both mean laughing, smiling and well groomed, becoming sober only when they read a document labeled "the will" in Arabic. An AK-47 is propped against the wall as they speak.

On the same tape, unedited footage taken 10 days prior to Atta's and Jarrah's appearance, shows bin Laden addressing a group at his compound near Kandahar. Among those identified in the crowd is Ramzi Binalshibh, allegedly a central figure in the 9-11 terror attacks who has since been captured.

Government officials have alleged that Binalshibh – who tried unsuccessfully at least three times to enter the United States and take flying lessons before Sept. 11, 2001 – may have planned to join the hijack effort. Now officials have said he is cooperating with authorities.

Attah and Jarrah stood out from the other 17 hijackers, most of whom were young Saudi fundamentalists. They were well educated and fit into western society while studying in Germany, according to those who knew them there.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52229

**Edit**

The Sunday Times - World

The Sunday Times October 01, 2006

posted October 01, 2006 07:56 PM              

quote:

---

The high quality video was obtained by the London Times and validated by the newspaper's contacts in al-Qaida and the U.S. It lacks a sound track and efforts at lip reading the pair as they speak has been unsuccessful.

---

posted October 01, 2006 11:35 PM              

By Thomas R. Olmsted. M.D.

I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad.

It troubled me a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence.

I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened.

Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that “crashed” on that day.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is.

I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list.

Guess what?

No Arabs on the list.

It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families.

You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff.

It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons.

Click here for the list provided by American of the 56 passengers....
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the "hijackers" of Flight 77.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identified nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed,

125 worked at the Pentagon

and 64 were “passengers” on the plane.

The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58.

They did not explain how they were able to tell “victims” bodies from “hijacker” bodies.

In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam’s butt (weren’t these originally two different people?).

It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers.

So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Sadaam had done the deed.

Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list.

Believe me that they weren’t a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab;

however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airline sneaked in.

I have seen no explanation for these extras.

I did give American the opportunity to “revise” their original list, but they have not responded.

The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague.

The AFIP claims that the only “passenger” body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.

The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.

Stay tuned for part two to take a much closer look of the cast of characters on this ill-fated flight.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

posted October 02, 2006 03:53 AM              

Greetings Mr. White,

I felt it necessary to follow up to a recent story that
was published in Cincinnati Post.

It was the "1 in 3 believe 9-11
conspiracy theory. "

I must admit that at first I was overwhelmed with
joy that our local paper was actually starting to have real journalism
and talk about real issues.

Then I read the story...... and it was a total debunk to make the actual people around the world who feel there was something not right about 9-11, to look like over reacting
conspiracy theorists.

I'm utterly outraged!

My 9 year old daughter could have done more research in this, as opposed to just trying to throw the publics ideas and feelings out.

Is this not what journalism is supposed to represent
- real issues?

There have been many, many polls done in major cities that actually ask people how they felt about the 9-11 tragedy.

One such poll is called the Zogby poll; which was offered in New York City.

Honestly I could care less what is done with this letter, but I feel that I should speak my mind and I'll tell you some things that I have not told many people at all.

From 1995 till 2002 I was a Sergeant in
the United States Army.

Not only this, but I was stationed at United States Central Command, which is located at MacDill AFB in Tampa, Florida.

I was on active duty when 9-11 happened.

In the days prior to the tragedies, we were involved in many exercises.

Some of these exercises included the scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into, our buildings - the world trade center, the White House, Sears Tower, and the Pentagon.

These drills or exercises as we called them, were classified Top Secret.

Having a Top Secret rated clearance I was dumbfounded that they would ever push a training exercise above the
level of Secret.

Over my 8 years in the Army, I had participated in many exercises around the world, none of which were ever classified
over the Secret level.

I'll start by saying a few months prior, it was announced by President Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading 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.

It was done this way because the defense of this country has always been in the hands of such.

Prior to the months before 9-11 this was all of a sudden CHANGED!

Like I said, if you research NORAD and the command structure you will find that it was imposed long ago that the military should be in control of the order to scramble planes in the defense of American air space.

For some strange reason, Bush changed this and gave that power to a civilian person on his Staff team.

Yes I know, very interesting.

Back to the morning of 9-11;

the command was busy with this training
exercise.

We were instructed to bring all our gear in to prep for a mock (staged) deployment to the Middle East.

On the morning of 9-11, I had been on base prepped and ready to go since about 0400am. During my time at the base that morning, they were setting up barriers around the command and placing gun posts on the roofs.

When I questioned one of the security officers about the machine gun and shoulder fired rockets on the roof I was given the answer its a precaution for a
plane attempting to crash into this building.

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.

We were watching the fly patterns
of all the planes on the aerospace grid.

This contained not only all commercial flights at the time, but all military flights, and fake enemy planes that were supposedly put on there for the exercise.

Many of the planes sent to intercept the fake blips were scrambled from Andrews which is an air defense AFB for the East Coast.

They were sent across the US and left very few planes to defend the capital.

After the first plane hit the tower we were all in disbelief!

After the initial shock was over, our questions were what are the odds this
could happen for real, during a training exercise thats covering the same scenario?

We were all at wits end.

Then to top all of this off, Cheney gave NORAD the order to stand down scrambling jets to intercept.

A few moments later tower 2 was hit.

Only after the Pentagon was hit, did he give the orders to scramble the jets to
intercept the plane bound for the White House.

All of this is very interesting to me - it sickened me so that I left the Army after coming back from an 8 month deployment to Afghanistan.

There were just too many questions that no one could answer, too many things that did not make sense.

How is it possible to have a training
exercise about planes hitting the WTC and then actually have planes hit the WTC?

This kind of thing just does not happen unless its - pre-planned.

What reason would there be to have this type of exercise on that morning?

I'll tell you if you are placing fake planes all over the north American aerospace grid then you have no way of knowing which planes are real and which are fake.

Then to thicken the plot you put a civilian in charge of NORAD so that the military does NOT HAVE THE POWER to initiate the order for jets to be scrambled to intercept.

If the military would have still commanded power over NORAD
they would have scrambled jets because they would have simply followed the procedures that had been in place for this type of situation for years and years - and scrambled jets.

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.

When the towers collapsed he kept saying this isn't right, this isn't right. When I asked him what he was talking about he told me that steel buildings dont fall down that way.

Even if they are struck by objects; he went on to say, that in theory if the top 10 floors were hit, then possibly just that part of the building would fall over and off, but the rest would remain standing.

When I asked him, not understanding the implications of demolitions, he told me that it looked as if they were brought down by controlled demolitions.

I was utterly amazed! but after he said that it did sort of appear that way.

I'll tell you what gave this whole thing away was building 7.

If they would NOT have brought this building down, then they probably
could have gotten away with it all.

It was the most amazing site I
have ever seen.

Not only was it amazing, it bore reality to the truth of the situation something was not right here.

Now, Im going to tell you all I have learned, but I urge anyone to just spend 1hr reading about this incident on the internet and learning the facts.

There have been numerous scholars, numerous physicists that have analyzed this over and over and over again.

And they all come to the same conclusion - something does not add up.

Building 7 was never directly hit by a plane.

Now it was stated that a piece of one of the towers fell onto the side of building 7 and caught one of the floors on fire.

A few moments later we all witnessed the most perfect example of controlled demolitions to ever be caught on camera.

It could not be proved that building 7 fell due to fire.

My friend and I standing
there in the SCIF watching in uninterruptible awe - with all those other
military members; watching building 7 fall perfectly onto its footprint; my friend stating that it was beautifully done.

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.

It was impossible.

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.

He did not answer, but one of his soldiers did.

I asked if SGT. Worthington was ok, and he said "Yes."

I asked if the plane did severe damage, and he told me, "I didn't see any
plane."

Then when I finally got to speak to my friend - he started acting strange saying he could not talk about the incident over this line.

He was shipped off overseas a few weeks later and I never to this day have had the chance to speak with him.

The Pentagon crash tape was released a few months back after 5 years.

You need to watch that tape no where can you see a plane strike the
Pentagon.

This is because IT WAS NOT A PLANE!

I cannot tell you exactly what hit the Pentagon, but its unanimous; it was definitely not a plane.

I can assure you that there is more than one CCTV camera around the Pentagon.

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

Over the 8months 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 they 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.

My point Mr. Editor is that I spent 8 months in combat watching my
brothers die in the name of Freedom.

I killed, in the name of Freedom - and to this day my brothers are still being killed for this illusionary war we call the War on Terror.

Where the enemy has no face, where there is no clear objective.

In this War, anyone with ill thoughts toward this country can be defined as a terrorist.

Well, I guess that includes me in this group as well as everyone else who
questions the events of 911, because we all hold ill thoughts toward the leadership of this country....and I say the REAL terrorists in this world sit right in the heart of its capital.

I have bled for this country and would do so again in a heart beat but only to protect its people, the true Americans that live here.

I would never again offer my life under the leadership whose real goal
is oil and money.

The same ones who staged the most perfect
illusionary tactic in our history that was a pretext to a war on terror that would never again go away.

Their goal was to scare the American public into submission making it easier for the world powers to do their evil and get away with it.

Now that may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist I guess, but how
many do you actually talk to?

Im not here saying that Aliens came
down and used laser beams to bring the towers down or control the planes that were flown; Im telling you as a sane, logical and intelligent individual, something does not add up about this.

Earlier this year I was watching the Discovery channel.

They have a PBS program called Rebuilding America. This particular episode was about the WTC building 7.

They interviewed Larry Silverstein (the owner) about building 7.

He stated on national TV the following which is the direct quote and can be found here:
http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

quote:

---

I remember getting a call from the, ER, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

---

I actually have the program recorded and you are more than welcome to
come by my house and watch it.

He actually stated this on national TV.

I was so amazed that I almost shat myself.

I could not believe he actually stated this on a nationally broadcasted TV program.

You can ask any person who has done controlled demolitions please interview
someone they will tell you it takes weeks of planning to do this.

We are expected to believe that this was facilitated and planned in a matter of hours for building 7, while the damn thing was on fire! you have got to be kidding me.

If that is not enough to make you believe
something was fishy well then nothing will ever do.

Since that time there have been numerous scholars, some of which have
actually been publicly broadcasted on CSPAN. The latest program was
called: Theories about 9-11. American Perspectives and you can watch
this (which I advise you do) per this link: Theories about 9-11 (American Perspectives) or you can go to www.c-span.org and look under
their video/audio section to find this title. Its an outstanding
video and encompasses the thoughts of not only the American public,
but also Dr Steven Jones from Brigham Young University a physics
professor that actually received a piece of the rubble from the WTC.
Not only does he 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.

Sir, there are many things that I never wanted to know for one that
the government that is supposed to be caring for the American people
could be corrupt.

This was the last thing that I ever wanted to be true but its time we wake up and smell the ******** because its permeating throughout the American public and we are all starting to
realize whats really going on.

If your news station actually did a
similar Zogby type poll here in Cincinnati, I think you would find
that a lot more than 1/3 of the people believe this. I know tons just
in this area.

I could literally write you 100 pages of truths that could prove that
9-11 was an inside job, but Id probably just be passed off as some crazy conspiracy theorist........

......who knows you may wake up [one day] and stand along side the rest of us
in utter amazement!

Respectfully,

SGT Lauro Chavez
United States Central Command

posted October 02, 2006 12:01 PM            

It's been 5 years now since 9/11. So why have the brain dead failed to come up with a unified theory of WHO, HOW and WHY the WTC was bombed?

Why have none of the 50,000 or so people who would necessarily have had to know it was a hoax come forward? Some of these people are Canadian citizens...the Canadian component of NORAD and that involves the Canadian government as well.

Yep, in all those people there is not even ONE patriotic citizen, not one...according to the brain dead.

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted September 26, 2006.

A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of **** -you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

" You're just another MSM-***** left gatekeeper paid off by corporate America," said one writer. "What you do isn't journalism at all, you dick," said another. "You're the one who's clinically insane," barked a third, before educating me on the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.

I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. The first is that it gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration. I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes. In fact, if there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to **** in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying.

Secondly, it's bad enough that people in this country think Tim Lahaye is a prophet and Sean Hannity is an objective newsman. But if large numbers of people in this country can swallow 9/11 conspiracy theory without puking, all hope is lost. Our best hope is that the Japanese take pity on us and allow us to serve as industrial slaves in their future empire, farming sushi rice and assembling robot toys.

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.

The specifics vary, but the basic gist of what They Say Happened goes something like this:

A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for a New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to al-Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with al-Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ******* nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ******* nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, okay.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? **** , didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the internet before.

9/11 Truth followers will doubtless argue that I am ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence proving that the Towers could not have collapsed as a result of the plane crashes alone, that a plane could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon, that the hole in Shanksville was not caused by a jet.

To which I'll have to answer: you're right. I am ignoring it. You idiots. Even if it were not the rank steaming ******** my few scientist friends assure me that it is, none of that stuff would prove anything. All of the 9/11 science claims belong to the "All men are Socrates" school of logic, so named after the famous Woody Allen syllogism: Socrates was a man; All men are mortal; Therefore, all men are Socrates.

That's how 9/11 Truth lore works. The towers couldn't have fallen the way they did; there are no big plane parts in the Pentagon crash photos; therefore, all men are Socrates. That's basically the case against George W. Bush. A bunch of people heard explosions, an anchorman says the falling Towers remind him of a controlled demolition, therefore... George Bush committed the crime of the ages? Am I missing something?

In the real world you have to have positive proof of involvement to have a believable conspiracy theory. Take an excellent analogous conspiracy story, the 1999 Russian apartment bombings scandal, in which a series of residential buildings were blown up, with the explosions blamed on Muslim terrorists by Vladimir Putin, who quickly assumed emergency powers and started a war in response. Very similar, superficially, to 9/11 Truth lore.

A lot of very smart people in Russia think that the FSB, the successor agency to the KGB, might have been involved in those attacks. Why? Not because some pinhead on the internet turned a disaster photo upside down 50 times until he found Waldo lurking in its lower left-hand corner. No, people believe that one because numerous witnesses and a local police department found a real bomb and verifiably traced said bomb to a car belonging to the FSB, which subsequently admitted to having been there and having planted the device (they claimed it was an "exercise"). Subsequently, numerous operatives confessed to having been in on the plot. Moreover, numerous journalists who exposed this story were beaten and harassed, with a few even killed, including an acquaintance of mine named Yuri Shekochikhin who died in spy-novel fashion, felled by a mysterious poison. And yet, even with all that, I'm not sure the apartment bombings theory isn't ******** . But it's at least worth listening to, especially since political mass murders have been as regular as soccer season in Russia since the days of the Doctor's Plot.

Compare that with 9/11 Truth lore, where the only positive evidence linking George Bush to the alleged bombings is the fact that Bush's dipshit brother Marvin once sat on the board of a security company that for a time handled security at the Towers. And that's it -- the rest of it is anecdotal evidence of people hearing explosions (in a collapsing skyscraper full of jet fuel? Shocking!), photos of the suspiciously pristine Pentagon lawn, etc. As for the intrepid 9/11 Truthers exposing this deadly conspiracy, when even one of them suffers so much as a scratch to his mom's minivan for his brave investigative efforts, I want to hear about it, because it'll be the first time.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements 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 and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.