Richard Falk Goes Bonkers on 9/11: Susan Rice Condemns

-

rice un.jpgI am in full agreement with Susan Rice:

Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, January 25, 2011
I am appalled by the recent personal blog written by Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”
In this blog post, dated January 11, 2011, Mr. Falk endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who allege that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were perpetrated and then covered up by the U.S. government and media.
Mr. Falk’s comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. I have registered a strong protest with the UN on behalf of the United States. The United States has in the past been critical of Mr. Falk’s one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether.
In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN. I would note that U.S. and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the UN General Assembly.
The United States is deeply committed to the cause of human rights and believes that cause will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create.
Ambassador Susan E. Rice

Richard Falk, who has been a celebrated far left voice on Middle East issues, has just sunk his own ship. I agree with Rice that his credibility is so in doubt now that he can’t continue to play a role where trust is fundamental from all parties.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

93 comments on “Richard Falk Goes Bonkers on 9/11: Susan Rice Condemns

  1. questions says:

    And to close,
    “I will give an example: Griffin states early on in TNCR that

    Reply

  2. questions says:

    And more from the paper on controlled demolition — by someone who knows something about…demolition!
    “It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines:

    Reply

  3. questions says:

    And on the free fall only in controlled demolitions….
    “To many people the apparent collapse of the buildings at

    Reply

  4. questions says:

    Ok, one more….
    “All the evidence suggests that WTC 7 was unique in the history of fire-fighting because (a) structural damage was extensive, (b) vast openings in the south face allowing unimpeded airflow, (c) water mains had been severed by the collapse of the Towers, and hence almost no water was available to the Fire Service, and (d) the Fire Service had anyway made the eminently reasonable policy decision that their priority was to save lives not buildings, so it burned for 7 hours virtually unattended. Also, the bulging of the building prior to collapse is also prime evidence against the CD theory, because controlled demolition never produces such bulges.
    In this section Jones also wants to argue that the fine rubble produced in the WTC 7 collapse is evidence of explosives:
    Jones: By contrast, concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were pulverized to dust — as is common in controlled demolitions using explosives.
    But we have already pointed out that concrete floors, if they are pulverised to dust in controlled demolition, are pulverised due to gravity, not explosives. This is a core mistake repeated by Jones and other CD theorists.
    Brent Blanchard deals with WTC 7 in section 7 of his paper. He refutes the claim that the owner of WTC 7 had any role in its collapse, and also says: ‘Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was detected by any recording instrument.’ I will return to the issue of seismic data in section 3.3.”
    http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
    A really nice paper.

    Reply

  5. sdemetri says:

    Occam tells you nothing. Fire causing free fall of the entire
    building, as observed, is the much more complex thing to prove
    and accept. Free fall happens regularly and predictably with CD
    all the time. Major engulfing fires from any of the half dozen or
    more skyscraper fires that have occurred don’t support fire as a
    likely cause of free fall collapse of an entire building. CD is much
    more likely and the much simpler explanation. (The fact that a
    highly energetic compound, only available from government
    labs, has been found in the dust helps support this much more
    likely conclusion.)
    There were squibs observed.
    Progressive collapse of the east and west penthouses could be
    caused by either column failure due to fire, but not as likely as to
    cutter charges. Fires do not a priori prove that is how columns
    did fail. Columns fail much less of the time due to fire than to
    CD.
    Explosions were heard by many, many eyewitnesses, even two
    within the building earlier in the day. But cutter charges can be
    calibrated to minimize sound so a claimed lack of explosions
    doesn’t prove explosives weren’t used to achieve what has the
    hallmarks of a controlled demolition. But again, explosions were
    heard and are documented in both video and by many
    eyewitnesses. They have been related by people that saw, heard,
    felt, experienced the shock waves.
    Is there a “natural” way to take account of the 2+ seconds of
    actual free fall? Fire is the least likely way. Whether steel is an
    “excellent” conductor of heat, or just a “not particularly good”
    conductor of heat, I have enough physical chemistry training to
    know that it is a conductor of heat and the deformation that
    occurs takes time and lots of energy. It is extremely unlikely that
    all of the perimeter columns and remaining core columns failed
    simultaneously, or even within seconds of each other, by
    deformation from the fires observed to not be widespread. Fires
    photographed in WTC 4, 5, or 6 completely engulfed those
    buildings and yet did not cause complete, simultaneous
    structural failures as you, and other debunkers, are suggesting
    happen with WTC 7. Fires do cause slow deformation and
    asymmetric collapses of steel framed buildings. I don’t believe
    they have ever been documented as causing complete structural
    failure so as to cause free fall. So, no, free fall is not easily, by
    any stretch, explained by fire.
    If Occam insists on the simplest explanation, the explanation as
    to why WTC 7 collapsed is certainly not by fire. That is an
    incredibly complex leap. As it is also in the other two buildings.
    CD is much easy to explain the observed evidence and complete
    disintegration of the two towers, and the free fall collapse of 7.
    Been nice debating these points. It sharpens my thinking on this.

    Reply

  6. questions says:

    Near as I can tell, I think it comes down to this, first, whether or not a portion of the building’s falling at something akin to free fall for 2.5 seconds can ONLY be explained by CD or not.
    I get the distinct feeling that having blazing fires, seeing significant evidence of progressive failure and building movement before the major collapse is visible suggests that progressive failure is fire-related.
    I get the distinct sense from things that CD is done from the bottom up not from the top down, so the insides should have been munched by explosives and the WHOLE building should have gone down at free fall as there should have been no internal resistance.
    I get the distinct impression that explosives would have been heard, that squibs would have been visible, that seismic data would have been different had there been CD.
    I get the distinct impression that there would have been witnesses to the loading up of explosives had there been CD.
    I get the distinct impression that there would have been a reason for the downing of Bldg 7 in particular had there been CD.
    No Truther thing I’ve come across has satisfied any of these conditions. Top secret hard drives? Asbestos? Insurance money? None of it holds up.
    Seismic data — nope. Collapse from the bottom? Nope.
    Is there a way to take account of the 2.5 seconds and still have it related to fire, hours of burning, within keeping of eye witness and ear witness reports, the slowness of the collapse from the beginning of the fires to the fall, the “footprint” of the collapse, the testimony of demolition experts and fire fighters, oh, and did I mention the seismic data? Yes, indeed, the 2.5 seconds seems to be quite explicable by “natural” (haha) forces.
    The fire, the roofline collapse, the timing, all of this fits perfectly well with a non-bomb-related collapse, AND it has the added benefit of not needing wild conspiracy theories regarding human behavior.
    Occam tells me which to pick.
    The videos, the comments after, suggest to me that David Chandler is incorrect in his start and stop reads, in his explanation for those wild and crazy 2.5 seconds, and so I will stick with alienentity over David Chandler.
    I don’t suppose there’s much else to say. Your training in chemistry puts you about where my expertise is in this issue. I’m too well aware of specialization to think that some chem classes or even an MS in chem is sufficient training for anyone to be able to deal with the materials science, engineering, demolition, physics issues all interrelated here.

    Reply

  7. sdemetri says:

    *Posted by questions, Jan 27 2011, 9:56PM*
    Both of these simply reiterate the same averaging of the rate of
    acceleration that Chandler points out. By averaging the rate you
    are throwing out the salient points of what is visually observed.
    It is not controversial that the east penthouse collapses first,
    indicating partial collapse inside the building. It is not
    controversial that the west penthouse collapses, quickly followed
    by the entire roofline en mass. None of this “debunks” what
    Chandler is saying. In fact he treats this as the averaging of the
    rate of acceleration and the error of NIST’s analysis. This dude
    “alienentity” that put together these videos falls into the same
    trap as NIST and makes the exact same error.
    You know, our jury system relies on a jury of peers to hear
    “expert” testimony from qualified authorities on a given technical
    subject that they must decide. It might be medical professionals
    in a tobacco case, or engineers in an auto accident case.
    Objective peers in a jury who aren’t experts themselves and
    don’t naturally understand the technical aspects of a case have
    to be “taught” by the experts in order to come to a decision of
    guilt or innocence. You, and me for that matter, are acting as a
    jury and relying on expert testimony of complex issues. I trained
    as a chemist, so I know I have at least some scientific training. I
    don’t know your training, but it is likely not in the sciences. What
    I find in your all of your cutting and pasting is a reliance on
    experts of a particular bent. You show an unshakable bias in
    favor for the orthodox version of these events based on your
    unwillingness to accept a larger narrative, one you have
    concocted and believe is the “truther” narrative, that says
    roughly that elements of the Bush admin had a role of some sort.
    This narrative is unacceptable and clouds your judgement to the
    finer points in the expert testimony. You have pre-judged the
    finer details of the evidence based on the narrative you have
    chosen for yourself. You are a biased juror, not an objective one.
    At least that is what I see.
    The fine detail is what “alienentity” and NIST are obfuscating by
    averaging the rate of acceleration. It is abundantly obvious that
    movement is seen in the east penthouse, and then the west
    penthouse, while the rest of the building stands unmoving for a
    brief time. No argument there. It is obvious in the videos. That is
    the observable evidence.
    But then, instantaneously, the entire roofline falls. If you average
    the rate of acceleration from the moment that the east
    penthouse falls until the building is out of sight in the video, you
    will get a rate of acceleration that is about 40% of free fall. That
    is what NIST did, and what this dude is doing. But the averaging
    of the rate of acceleration throws out the information that is
    contained in the observable fact that the building was standing
    one moment with the roofline intact, unmoving, and in the next
    moment descending at free fall.
    Free fall ONLY occurs if all the supporting structures are
    removed. Free fall DID occur. It is observed and is proven with
    scientifically significant accuracy and precision. All of the
    supporting steel holding up what is observed in the video after
    the east and west penthouse vanish fails simultaneously,
    offering NO resistance to the collapse of the building for the
    next few seconds.
    Averaging the rate of acceleration from the time the east
    penthouse falls until the building is out of sight, what NIST did
    to arrive at their rate of descent, masks this all important
    observation. Probably deliberately, because the implications of
    free fall insist that all of the remaining supporting columns HAD
    to have failed simultaneously, at least 50 perimeter columns and
    the remaining core columns after the collapse of the penthouses
    HAD to have failed simultaneously for free fall to occur as
    observed. Averaging the rate of descent, NIST and the alien dude
    did, masks this necessary conclusion.
    Chandler is very clear about this. NIST and your debunker,
    alienentity, aren’t. They both make the same mistake and arrive
    at an indefensible conclusion by fudging the data contained in
    the observations.

    Reply

  8. rc says:

    “I just have to ask this question….indelicate as it is…because this is about a dozen times now I have read about the IDF habit of “defecating” all over Palestine homes when they raid them. What kind of people do such a nasty revolting thing? What is the motivation–is it the filthiness of their mentality they are expressing? I don’t get it. Maybe one of the Israelis here can explain this Israeli habit to me. I have never heard of any other army doing this.” (Carroll, Jan 27 2011, 2:09AM)
    Well I’m sure it goes on with ill-disciplined forces (Abu Ghraib for example, although according to Donald Rumsfeld they are allowed to let off a bit of steam).
    But it is an interesting phenomena. Although I cannot supply references, discussions with law enforcement people once indicated that this is a common occurrence at certain crime scenes as well.
    Invading another person’s home and stealing etc seems to have some psycho-physical effect on the body functions. Of course now that DNA tests are commonplace this activity may have reduced.
    If one searches on something like “why do criminals defecate at crime scenes?” (or words to that effect) then some ideas do come up.
    1. Signalling dominance — and sometimes associated with twisted sexual perversions etc. (see below)
    2. Drug use that moves bowls in tense moments.
    3. Strange occult type behavior – e,g, “As the group abandoned the murder plan and left, Susan Atkins defecated in the stairwell.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson )
    4. And just plain sh_t scared — e.g. “Dr. Garavaglia also noted that it is very common for people to defecate in their undergarments when they are very scared or at the time of death.” (http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/Opinions-Non%20Published/74136.htm)
    Here is something which might lend itself more towards Medieval paranoia of Jews than modern fact for the IDF in 2000’s (or at least I hope so):
    “Since 1972 I have lectured about sexual ritual, which is nothing more than repeatedly engaging in an act or series of acts in a certain manner because of a *sexual* need. In order to become aroused and/or gratified, a person must engage in the act in a certain way. This sexual ritual can include such things as the physical characteristics, age, or gender of the victim, the particular sequence of acts, the bringing or taking of specific objects, and the use of certain words or phrases. This is more than the concept of M.O. (Method of Operation) known to most police officers. M.O. is something done by an offender because it works. Sexual ritual is something done by an offender because of a need. Deviant acts, such as urinating on, defecating on, or even eviscerating a victim, are far more likely to be the result of sexual ritual than religious or “satanic” ritual.” (I’ll skip the link due to the 2-link limitations here but a google will find it easy enough).
    So, I’m guessing the IDF defecation procedure is part of desecration rituals promoted by the Israeli army, government and culture.
    I’m also inclined to believe that among the brown-shirted thugs that storm-trooper their way into civilian homes there are also some young and perhaps impressionable males (I’m making an assumption here of course, IDF females may well be into it as well?) that are at their core reasonably well bred and ethical — and therefore suffering deep existential anxiety and biological release through these uncivilized sub-human antics.
    If sure, like most military systems since WW2 (especially the Nazis), the use of amphetamines and their weird ‘satanic’ side effects cannot be ruled out — especially if you have a troop of whimpering little mommy’s boys to turn into real ‘men’!
    It is not an especially Jewish phenomena I’d assume (unless there is some obscure Biblical tract that promotes it?) — but it does demonstrate, that with ‘turf’ under their feet like everyone, else they are no different.

    Reply

  9. questions says:

    Haven’t watched this yet. Will get to tomorrow.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ
    These are parts 1 and 2 of a Chandler debunking thing.

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    By the way, Chandler has more than one video up, I believe.
    Maybe he corrected his claim?
    But you never addressed the starting point for the counting, nor did you note that there was enough fire damage that the collapse may well have been fairly speedy because there wasn’t any support left underneath for 2 plus seconds.
    So, is the collapse of the penthouse irrelevant?
    And is his margin of error small enough?

    Reply

  11. questions says:

    Here’s a marvelous resource — an actual bibliography listing a bunch of articles and other sources on the issues at hand.
    Click and read the night away.
    http://sites.google.com/site/911science/

    Reply

  12. sdemetri says:

    The first two links contain false and irrelevant statements.
    Chandler measures WTC 7 acceleration at the number I posted
    above, 9.885m/second-squared, not 10m/second-squared.
    Free fall in NYC is 9.805m/second-squared. WTC 7 fell at a rate
    scientifically indistinquishable from free fall.
    The third link is irrelevant as Chandler addresses the claims
    made there in his explanation.
    Having trained in science I will leave you to your “authorities,”
    and will trust my own training and intuitions.
    I have my suspicions about what a full narrative of these attacks
    might be. But they are irrelevant, and likely to never be proven.
    The observable evidence, on the other hand, is irrefutable. The
    first link in your latest posts above says something like, “this
    would be the first time nano-thermite was used to demolish a
    building.” So what? What does that statement prove? That is no
    argument. But when acceleration is carefully measured and
    analyzed proving a phenomenon as physically fundamental as
    free fall acceleration, certain conclusions must follow from that
    fact. It is inescapable. For free fall to occur, there can be no
    support offering resistance to the falling object. It is inescapable,
    as fundamental as…. gravity.
    My conjuring up a larger narrative as to who may have been
    involved and why is completely irrelevant to this analysis
    regarding free fall. This fact of free fall stands completely by
    itself as a great, unexplained mystery. But being a fundamental
    phenomenon with inescapable consequences that must follow
    from it, I have to accept that NIST has failed to explain why WTC
    7 collapsed, and that their accepted explanation is bullshit
    because it ignores this fundamental fact. Why? I don’t know, but
    it could be because they are hiding something they don’t want
    let out. If not, they would take this fundamental fact and
    incorporate what must follow from that fact into their conclusion.
    They haven’t and likely never will.

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    “The most recent version continues this trend. The 6.5 second measurement is still implied to be the entire time of collapse, the first graph still claims 9.1 m/s-squared, but now a video from David Chandler claims that the building is falling at an average rate of 10.27 m/s-squared. Faster and faster this building keeps falling as the videos travel through time!
    To his credit, Chandler mentions that 9.8 m/s-squared is

    Reply

  14. sdemetri says:

    I don’t care one whit what Mackey documents. I’ve read enough
    of the official report to be able to think about the modeling they
    used and some of the obvious holes in the methodology.
    With regard to Building 7 they released animations that bear no
    resemblance to what is observed in the videos that publicly
    exist. You accept their conclusion on pure faith, because what
    their model is is a black box. The data and parameters are a
    complete mystery to you, me, Mackey… Their model doesn’t
    show what actually happened, and not being validated doesn’t
    show anything of real value to anybody except those that take it
    on faith. Independent validation of the model could determine
    why it doesn’t show what has been observed, and why it should
    be taken on faith. It will likely show the model is fatally flawed.
    James Quinteira is a PhD scientist that at one time headed the
    fire safety division at NIST. He doesn’t believe elements in the
    govt were behind what happened, but he does believe, and said
    so very publicly at a world fire safety conference that the data
    and parameters should be independently validated because the
    conclusions drawn from the models is very suspect.
    Statements in the NCSTAR 1 report regarding Building 7 are
    shown by David Chandler to be at best evidence of
    incompetence, at worst deliberately fraudulent. His simple
    analysis of the rate of acceleration of the collapse of WTC 7 using
    software available to any high school physics teacher FORCED
    NIST to make an enormously significant change to their
    calculations regarding free fall and their final report. What NIST
    completely fails to do is incorporate into their conclusion the
    obvious and necessary conclusion that follows from the fact that
    the building collapsed at free fall in the first few seconds.
    Incompetence or fraud? There are many competent people at
    NIST, so the likely explanation is they have something they are
    trying to cover up, and have done a very poor job of it.
    Free fall is by definition the acceleration due to gravity with no
    resistance from anything. All supporting steel that held the
    building up at one moment in the next no longer supported the
    building. That is what is implied by what NIST was forced to
    accept as deriving from the video evidence.
    Plotting the data derived from publicly available video shows the
    building was stable one moment, and then immediately
    accelerated to free fall acceleration. Not just one corner of the
    building. Not selected parts of the building. The videos clearly
    show the entire building dropping straight down for the first
    several seconds. Careful measure of that rate of descent shows
    free fall acceleration. NIST could not deny what is plainly
    obvious, and easily derived with the utmost of scientific
    certainty.
    An asymmetric collapse from fire progressively causing
    structural steel to fail column by column, which is what NIST’s
    animations show and what they publicly claim happened, would
    have a vastly different acceleration profile, one that would not be
    within 1% of free fall acceleration.
    Buildings demolished in a controlled manner show, every time, a
    profile of stability one moment and then free fall collapse the
    next. Every time, unless the demolition is deliberately
    engineered differently. Nothing in your ramblings above
    addresses this fundamental fact about WTC 7.
    I am not asking you to create a full blown narrative about who
    and why anyone might do something like this. I am asking you to
    examine this one very narrow fact. Forget about all the rest, the
    who, the why, the wouldn’t it have been easier to just… Focus on
    this one scientifically sound fact. A lot follows from it.

    Reply

  15. questions says:

    Oh, and there’s this:
    “The Final Report on Building 7 shows that the collapse started when a support beam on Floor 13 was knocked loose by other beams expanding because of high temperatures from the fires. This started a partial collapse of floors around Column 79, leaving it unsupported over several floors.”
    http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/onset-of-collapse/
    And there’s more, but I really do want to keep to fair use limitations.
    Click and read.
    It’s not the story you tell, not the story the Truthers tell, but it is a little more convincing.

    Reply

  16. questions says:

    POA, I need a physics lesson from you to explain what your concern is.
    I really don’t understand what you’re saying.
    Is it that it wasn’t very hot? That the people weren’t really standing by broken windows? Is it that there were no broken windows?
    And what does it have to do with the original point you were making that 3 other buildings have burnt since 9/11 and they had a different failure pattern?
    I’m a little lost here. Gimme a hand!

    Reply

  17. questions says:

    “More rigorous calculations have been published in respected scientific journals (Bazant & Zhou (pdf), and Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (pdf)). The results work out to the same conclusion. The dynamic loads of the descending mass was far too large to be redistributed by any structure available to resist them. The acceleration of their descent was not mathematically unusual.
    Therefore, the buildings falling at speeds that can be described as

    Reply

  18. questions says:

    Two Minutes and Thirty-Seven Seconds to rock your world!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw&feature=player_embedded
    Watch it and tell me whose telling the right story from the right starting point?

    Reply

  19. questions says:

    Watched it.
    http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/2010/ae911truth/7-facts-about-ae911truth-and-building-7/
    http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/collapse/free-fall/
    I believe that this covers your concerns.
    You know, a high school physics teacher with easily gotten software is a high school physics teacher with easily gotten software.
    I had a high school physics teacher once. I think I’ve met some others. Really nice people! They have software, too.
    Below, I’ll post a youtube link for you. It tells a different story from that very same video tape.
    I have no idea if the teller of this tale is a high school physics teacher or not, and I have no idea if he uses easily available software. But he seems to know how to count to 16!!!!

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Mackey clearly documents the existence of plenty of broken windows as partial evidence of high temperatures”
    “So, seriously, POA, what are you even talking about with your taunt? Broken windows debunk Griffen, they don’t support Griffen”
    High winds sufficient to push a blazing inferno that melts huge steel structural members, and you have people standing, unsupported, waving, in the openings on the floors that are supposed to be experiencing these high winds and blazing infernos. Yeah right. Try thinking, instead of posting volumes of shit you are unqualified to assess.

    Reply

  21. sdemetri says:

    Free fall is a part of the NCSTAR 1 report. It has not been “debunked.” It is acknowledged by NIST. You need to slow down a couple of clicks and think about what is being said. Take nine and a half minutes and watch the link above. If you won’t do that at a minimum there is no sense with you continuing to post assumptions and rebuttals to what you think I am saying.

    Reply

  22. questions says:

    Note that the hyperventilating about Mackey’s tome has nothing to do with the stuff I posted about Building 7, which comes from a different person.
    Here’s your thing from above:
    “Very precise analysis of video footage of the collapse of Building
    7 shows virtually no movement in the building, and then
    instantaneous acceleration to free fall acceleration. One moment
    the building is virtually stable and standing with nearly full
    support, the next it is descending at free fall acceleration. The
    implication of this documented phenomenon is that
    simultaneously all supporting structures in the building failed,
    completely, and for the next roughly 2.5s the building fell
    straight down having NO resistance to the force of gravity.
    Fire does not caused all supporting structural steel to fail
    instantaneously. Controlled demolition does so deliberately,
    every time.
    The acceleration due to gravity for an object in NYC is
    9.802m/second-squared. The measured acceleration of Building
    7 was 9.885m/second-squared, within 1% of actual free fall,
    scientifically speaking, indistinguishable from free fall.”
    And near as I can tell, it’s debunked by the paper I pasted from above, not Mackey, but the other one.
    The free fall issue is a misread of the time lapse.
    The building was burning for hours, it had a 20 story tall hole in one side, the firefighters had plenty of warning to pull back before it went down, there are eye witness accounts of the fire damage, the hole, the crowded conditions inside the offices such that there was no empty space for explosives to have been brought in, and it was inhabited 24/7 with financial workers.
    Look, the most damning case you can make is not that our government sacrificed some of us for some other motive. Governments do that all the time with wars, lack of regulation, giving in to pressure groups for all sorts of unsafe practices like guns or poorly designed cars or lack of health care or whatever. We’re all sitting ducks for this stuff.
    But we can see the logic in it.
    If Bush wanted a fucking war, he could have had a fucking war without exploding planes trains and automobiles. Seriously. Presidents do it all the time.
    And if he wanted a war, there were, again, many many far easier and far more certain ways to get a fucking war. Like he coulda sent troops! Just like that….
    The much more damning case, again, is that governmental structures will lead to fucking disasters every now and then, and all our efforts to communicate and collect information and get all the puzzle pieces lined up — all of this is doomed to failure.
    Now THAT’S gloomy.
    The evil isn’t in Bush or Cheney or the guy who ran the security operations at, or the firefighter or whatever….
    The real evil is that evil isn’t a figure or a person or the devil. Evil is a structure that comes about from people’s just doing what they normally do. Bad shit happens from structures that usually go right, and sometimes fail horrifically. That’s the world we live in.

    Reply

  23. sdemetri says:

    My own personal opinion is this can never get resolved. To show
    that elements of our own government could and would sacrifice
    a few citizens in service to much larger geo-political ends would
    create such divisions in society as to be very destabilizing. Like
    Lincoln’s assassination and unresolved questions as to the
    potential role of certain cabinet officials, we may never know
    what really happened…
    Millions upon millions around the world have a pretty good idea
    it didn’t happen as the Bush admin, the media, and now the
    Obama admin play it. And for very good reasons, the naysayers
    and deniers, some with impressive credentials, notwithstanding.
    Privately many folks are much more willing to express the
    incompleteness in the official tale, while publicly they distance
    themselves from those dreaded “truthers.”
    I know the company I keep with my opinions, analysis, and
    beliefs about these events. Rabid debunkers that refuse to see
    the least little discrepancy in the official story are welcome to
    their opinions. They have no monopoly on the facts and the
    science though.
    And questions, when you stop hyperventilating over Mackey’s
    tome, I’d be glad to have a focused discussion on the one aspect
    of the collapse of Building 7 I raised above.

    Reply

  24. AlwaysAskWHY says:

    Susan Rice HAS TO SAY THIS. She would be fired if she didn’t.
    Susan Rice is a pretty smart cookie. I would think that, most likely, she probably not only knows that he is RIGHT, but AGREES WITH FALK — AS MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF OUTRAGED PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD DO.

    Reply

  25. sdemetri says:

    You’re barking up the wrong tree there, fido.

    Reply

  26. questions says:

    And this:
    “Video including east mechanical penthouse collapse
    CTs often show video from street level and remark about how quickly the building fell (6.6 seconds, according to an estimate by BYU professor Steven E. Jones and his students, although since much of the collapse is obscured by other buildings and by the dust and smoke thrown up by WTC 7, it

    Reply

  27. questions says:

    From p. 91:
    Information on building codes and the vulnerability of steel in fires. Steel may seem STRONG, but fire doesn’t really do good things to it.
    and this:
    “One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes. Firehouse.com Sept. 1998”
    pp 96 and 97 have links to documents about fire safety, fire proofing, and the behavior of buildings in fires.
    p. 98 lets us know that the tidy pile wasn’t so tidy or pile-ish.
    101 gives us demolition information, including video links to what demolitions are really like.
    And there’s this:
    “Brent Blanchard of Protec:
    Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
    We have spoken with several who possess extensive expe-rience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
    As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless…we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming…but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.” http://tinyurl.com/m5kf5

    Reply

  28. questions says:

    “Some CTs contend that WTC 7 was demolished to conceal sensitive information that was stored there by some of its tenants. This is one of the silliest of all 9/11 CT claims. Sure: whenever I have information on my hard drives or documents that I don

    Reply

  29. questions says:

    Page 51 and on have lots of eye witness accounts of debris everywhere.
    Eye witness accounts of a huge hole in Building 7 visible on one side of the building. Some 20 stories tall…. Again, if I paste all the good stuff in, I’ll be violating copy right. Just go to the link, download the paper and read it. There are many photos, video links, and other worthwhile things. Loads of eye witness accounts that really go a long way to undermining the CT Truther reading of the infamous Building 7.
    Page 55 and on have eye witness accounts of pulling firefighters back from building 7.
    PP 66 and on look at conspiracists’ claims.
    “No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I

    Reply

  30. questions says:

    The setting: Larry Silverstein is being interviewed by a documentary crew from PBS. He calmly, clearly describes what happened. CTs would have us believe that Silverstein accidentally let it slip

    Reply

  31. questions says:

    Too many links — so I’m doing this in pieces instead of in one posting….
    Building 7 paper by Mark Roberts — a link to a Word document can be found here:
    http://www.jod911.com/
    There is also a paper by Brent Blanchard on demolition and three of the buildings.
    Here’s Blanchard quoted in the Roberts piece!
    “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. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.”
    *****
    Much of the Building 7 nonsense comes from a misunderstanding of the word “pull.”
    I swear, really. The word “pull” and Larry Silverstein, the major owner of WTC combine in a bizarro-world way to create just enough space for the CT Truthers to go at it!
    **
    There is a lot of material on “pull” that is worth reading. I don’t want to get into copyright trouble. It’s a 100 page document, so if I were to do 3or 4%, maybe it’s ok?? But I’m trying to limit it. The whole document is worth reading.
    ***

    Reply

  32. sdemetri says:

    Absolutely nothing on the link you provided says anything
    whatsoever about the analysis that is provided in the Chandler
    videos. Nothing. It is dated information dealing with dated topics of
    discussion.
    Try dealing with the argument as presented instead of regurgitating
    your pre-conceived biases. If you are unable to honestly try to
    understand the information you are provided with in the links I
    gave you and argue logically about it, there is no point continuing.
    Your obsession with the “world’s best debunking site” leaves you
    closed to any new analysis. Not an honest way to proceed.

    Reply

  33. sdemetri says:

    Not new videos… new analysis of existing videos. Or, continue
    chasing your tail… I don’t care if you are stuck in the past.

    Reply

  34. questions says:

    Building 7 has its own whole section at the world’s best debunking site.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
    If there are NEW VIDEOS, I’d be suspicious!
    If I find more about WTC 7, I’ll toss in links.
    Does it occur to you that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to smack planes into tall buildings and then dynamite their lesser neighbors?
    What a plan that would be — the precision work involved in planned destruction is, well, pretty precise near as I can tell. And things can go wrong.
    There are WAY WAY WAY WAY easier ways to go to war, like say, sending in troops!

    Reply

  35. Michael Leon says:

    Mr. Clemons,
    Did you actually read Prof Falk’s column? Really.
    Falk wrote: the “media … [is] unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events [of 9/11].” And that author David Ray Griffin is of a caliber of “other devoted scholars of high integrity.”
    That’s it. Why is the Lobby and its supporters so enraged by Falk’s rather banal comments?
    This constitutes going “Bonkers” in you estimation?
    Michael Leon

    Reply

  36. sdemetri says:

    questions, the quotes you are pulling up are talking about the two
    110 story towers, WTC 1 and 2.
    What I am talking about is Building 7.
    What you are pulling up is dated and doesn’t apply in any way
    whatsoever to what I am saying. Pay attention to the context. This
    obsession of yours with dated discussions about completely
    different buildings is down right odd. Building 7 is a different
    building and a different discussion. The old “debunking”
    discussions you are quoting simply don’t apply.

    Reply

  37. questions says:

    “This statement, referenced to Eric Hufschmid

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “One of the issues with WTC is that a lot of glass was broken, there was a lot of air to fan the fires, blablahblablah…….”
    Yeah, the people standing in the openings, waving, certainly lend credence to that, don’t they?

    Reply

  39. questions says:

    http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
    Free fall fallacy.
    “Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That’s almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.”
    And,
    http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I just have to ask this question….indelicate as it is…because this is about a dozen times now I have read about the IDF habit of “defecating” all over Palestine homes when they raid them. What kind of people do such a nasty revolting thing?”
    Need you ask? Just read Pearlman or Nadine, and you will find your answer.

    Reply

  41. Bill Pearlman says:

    When you guys make contact with alien life forms what are they like

    Reply

  42. sdemetri says:

    questions, you need a summary, eh?
    NIST’s analysis of the collapse of Building 7 claims the collapse
    took 5.4s from what it considered the first sign of movement in
    the building until the time it disappears from view behind its
    neighboring buildings. NIST calculates the acceleration at
    roughly 40% of free fall. NIST’s computer model, which NIST
    refuses to release for public inspection, validation, critique
    PREDICTS precisely 5.4s. So the model they used, but refuse to
    allow to be validated, gives the exact same time they claim is
    seen visually in the video evidence. For the model and actual
    observation to be in such perfect agreement is very unlikely, but
    also in this case a demonstrably false proposition. A start time
    for collapse had to be arbitrarily chosen to make 5.4s fit the
    observations. The last link I posted, posted again below, shows
    this very clearly.
    There is nothing observable in the video evidence to validate the
    start time NIST uses, and they refuse to validate how they arrived
    at their start time.
    The draft NCSTAR 1 report with regard to Building 7 claimed an
    “approximately constant speed” of collapse, at ~40% free fall.
    High school physics proved, and NIST was forced to publicly
    admit, that the collapse was NOT at constant speed, and was at
    free fall. They included the correction in the final report, but
    failed to yield to the fundamental implications that directly
    follow from free fall acceleration in their conclusion that fire
    caused the building to fail.
    Very precise analysis of video footage of the collapse of Building
    7 shows virtually no movement in the building, and then
    instantaneous acceleration to free fall acceleration. One moment
    the building is virtually stable and standing with nearly full
    support, the next it is descending at free fall acceleration. The
    implication of this documented phenomenon is that
    simultaneously all supporting structures in the building failed,
    completely, and for the next roughly 2.5s the building fell
    straight down having NO resistance to the force of gravity.
    Fire does not caused all supporting structural steel to fail
    instantaneously. Controlled demolition does so deliberately,
    every time.
    The acceleration due to gravity for an object in NYC is
    9.802m/second-squared. The measured acceleration of Building
    7 was 9.885m/second-squared, within 1% of actual free fall,
    scientifically speaking, indistinguishable from free fall.
    What NIST said in their draft report and also in their final
    NCSTAR 1 report was not only inaccurate, but arguably
    demonstrably fraudulent.
    The fact that this government agency could easily defuse any
    suspicions of conspiracy by releasing the data and parameters of
    their model to competent independent analysis, which I believe
    they have a legal responsibility to do under data integrity
    regulations governing government studies, but refuses to do so
    even in light of irreproachable evidence they have it wrong,
    amounts to a coverup.
    What NIST did release to the public by way of the graphic output
    of their model is a computer animation that does not resemble
    in any way whatsoever what is so clearly seen in the video
    footage readily available.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
    Rather than spending time reading Mackey’s 313pp denial of
    basic science, take nine and a half minutes to watch what I
    describe about explained clearly and succinctly.

    Reply

  43. questions says:

    POA:
    “There have been three notable skyscraper fires since 9/11. The buildings were totally gutted, which left nothing but the steel framework standing.”
    samuelburke:
    “i do not need a phd in some science to watch building seven
    collapse into it’s footprint in freefall speed to appreciate the fact
    that the explanations for it’s fall are ridiculous.”
    David Ray Griffen:
    “As one learns in logic classes,
    however, one must deal with one’s arguments.”
    and
    “Most people, of course, do appeal to the opinion of people who
    clearly do have the credentials to make judgments about the
    issue at hand. If one is really interested in whether my
    arguments might be sound, one could look at the lists of people
    who have endorsed my books.”
    *****
    Yokay.
    POA, the fact that three buildings have fallen differently from how WTC buildings fell says nothing at all. If your metaphor doesn’t fit, it just doesn’t fit.
    Every building fall is related to building construction types, destructive forces, and a whole bunch of other highly specific circumstances. One of the issues with WTC is that a lot of glass was broken, there was a lot of air to fan the fires, a bunch of jet fuel, a really hard hit from the planes, particular structures and a particular kind of fire resistant coating on the steel and so on. If the buildings to which you refer do not duplicate these circumstances, there’s simply no parallel.
    samuelburke, in fact you probably do need a little more training to figure out the free fall issues. Mackey discusses this at length and notes that people have the timing wrong for this. Read more. It’ll help.
    And David Ray Griffen, again, you’ve boxed yourself in. It’s ad hominem to refer to the status of the writer, but we do ad hominems, so here are some people who like what I do.
    Well, there are a lot of people who disagree, who actually do EXACTLY what you say people should do — respond to your arguments one at a time, point by point, carefully, with the physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, basic scientific method, eye witness account critiques….. And your response to these arguments is to note that some people like you.
    Who’s the “ad hominem-ist” here?

    Reply

  44. questions says:

    David Ray Griffen,
    If indeed it’s you (can’t be too careful on an open blog!), why not post a point by point rebuttal to the 313 page pdf I’ve been referring to all day long. (I still have about 200 pages of point by point rebuttal to go through, by the way.)
    You claim I’m using ad hominem arguments in suggesting that a theology or religion prof might have a harder time getting the physics right than, say, a Caltech/JPL trained person. Well, yeah. I actually, honestly, deeply and profoundly think that structural engineering requires some engineering training and experience. I do indeed think that understanding the free fall fallacies and the rest, the temperature of steel and its behavior, etc. requires, I don’t know, a substantial set of core courses in engineering, materials science, basic chem and physics and the like.
    What theology might give you is an ability to have a strong belief and to look for arguments to support it. Indeed, that’s actually what theology does — it justifies a set of pre-determined beliefs and uses texts in some amazing ways to support the beliefs. Belief and faith come first in theology. And it’s a beautiful field, filled with many wonderful people whose sense of the world, whose wonder at creation is a thing to behold.
    But it isn’t science.
    So, in true academic fashion, go through the the Mackey manuscript a point at a time and debunk his debunking. THAT’S how academic discourse moves on.
    To state that it’s an ad hominem for me to believe Mackey’s argument over yours because Mackey has training in the field, argues quite cogently, cites passages and explains them clearly, cites evidence, clears up mistakes, is dispassionate, admits moments of ambiguity, has a sense of what’s possible in the field and so on, to suggest it’s an ad hominem to prefer this over what you provide, BUT it’s not an ad hominem to prefer what YOU provide over what Mackey provides is, well, an act of faith near as I can tell.
    I would urge you, again, to read the Mackey manuscript, if you haven’t, and post a rebuttal, point by point.
    Explain how you’re not misreading eye witness accounts, how you don’t actually have the timing of events off, how the explosions really were related to bombs rather than to electrical fires and other pops and bangs that seem to accompany major fires or that might be related to the building collapse itself, and not to any explosive devices, how your “understanding” of the behavior of steel under heat and compression stresses is actually MORE correct than that of Mackey and materials science and engineering experts who have looked at the same issues.
    Explain how your understanding of the political system outstrips that of the people whose life is given over to understanding the political system.
    Explain how it really took a deliberate attack on our biggest city and our government and the deliberate killing of large numbers of our citizens and a deliberate wipe out of the airline industry, the financial industry, and American retail to justify a war, when in the past, we’ve found many much simpler ways to justify wars. Indeed, we just kind of go to war when we feel like it. So the whole “Bush wanted a war” issue really doesn’t make much sense.
    Explain the issues about the amount of explosives that would have to be well placed, the fact that the WTC buildings went down from top down, when, according to Mackey, deliberate building demolition starts from the bottom up (assuming I have Mackey correct here).
    There are apparently all sorts of methodological, engineering, chemistry, physics, materials science basics that the Truther “explanations” are missing.
    It’s fine to try to create a narrative that ignores basic and advanced understandings of the material world. These narratives are creative and beautiful.
    And they are objects of faith, not of reason and science.
    It’s an odd thing to pit these world views against each other.
    And it’s especially odd when the fact is that THE most damning version of 9/11 is the “official story” that, in fact, the proper functioning of the US government led pretty directly to the destruction.
    Think how much more awful it is that we did this to ourselves because of our very structures. Here’s the real problem of evil. NOT, the occasional few thousand bad guys in a conspiracy, but more that the basically unexamined normal functioning of our institutions, our choice of foreign policy aims, our use of energy, our dependence on a nasty world order, our bureaucratic structures, the way the FBI and CIA cannot cooperate, the way that careerists hold information back, the way that we miss connections, the way that it’s impossible to turn information into knowledge at every critical moment, the way that people can “know” there’s something “wrong” but then can’t figure out what to do with that knowledge…..
    Think about this entirely structural read of the 9/11 mess, how it fits with the physical and social evidence, how it’s incredibly damning for our system, and how, indeed it’s probably inevitable that there will be massive governmental failure of epic proportions and people will die unrescued by a deity.
    It’s not about rooting out a few “bad apples”, the damned, and putting them in jail. It’s about being human, thrown into the world, no deity or knowledge to rescue us. No institutions to keep us safe from the bad guys.
    It’s kind of, I don’t know, anti-theology.
    Once again, I urge you, if you are you, to go point by point through the Mackey piece and correct his physics, chemistry, materials science, eye witness interpretations and whatever else there is in the next 200 pages I have yet to read.
    THAT would be to avoid the ad hominem. THAT would be to avoid whatever the Latin name is for assuming the expert knows nothing while the non-expert is actually the expert.
    (Is there a name for that curious reversal?)

    Reply

  45. samuelburke says:

    i do not need a phd in some science to watch building seven
    collapse into it’s footprint in freefall speed to appreciate the fact
    that the explanations for it’s fall are ridiculous.
    no planes hit seven…it imploded magically and deliciously like a
    lucky charm. and sevens implosion implicates the entire operation
    as a joke.
    you deniers are just weird.

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    I really have to ask how you can be so gullible as to believe Breaking the Silence…but then we know the answer, don’t we, Carroll? It’s all grist for the mill of how the Jews really deserve it this time.
    Breaking the Silence is one of those pseudo-Israeli NGOs that is actually funded by the EU and various European governments. Its job is to make up allegations against the IDF, laundering Hamas accusations, passing on rumors as fact, including just enough information to sound plausible but not enough to permit the IDF or real reporters to investigate what happened.
    So papers all over the world report whatever they say as fact. Because journalism is dead, at least when Jews are involved.
    on the funding of Breaking the Silence: http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/07/europeans-funding-breaking-silence.html

    Reply

  47. Carroll says:

    I just have to ask this question….indelicate as it is…because this is about a dozen times now I have read about the IDF habit of “defecating” all over Palestine homes when they raid them.
    What kind of people do such a nasty revolting thing?
    What is the motivation–is it the filthiness of their mentality they are expressing? I don’t get it.
    Maybe one of the Israelis here can explain this Israeli habit to me.
    I have never heard of any other army doing this.
    More vindication for Goldstone: British news reports Israeli soldiers were ordered to

    Reply

  48. Carroll says:

    Isn’t it funny what people are ‘appalled’ by?
    Rice isn’t appalled by the inhumane Human rights violations by the Israelis that go on daily but she is ‘appalled’ by Falk’s very reasonable blog.
    For myself, I am more ‘appalled’ by the human rights violations the US supports.
    So as US citizen and taxpayer who helps fund the upside down world of Washington hypocrisy,I felt I had to tell Ms. Rice and those she works for just how appalled I am….you can too, right here, by e mail, or phone or fax if you prefer:
    http://archive.usun.state.gov/Issues/Contact2.html

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Discarding the science, the credentials, and the official narrative, common sense and logic begs scepticism about the veracity of the explanations we have been spoon fed.
    The one and only “truth” we will ever possess about this event is the fact that we will never be allowed to know the truth.
    Nonetheless, thank you, David Griffin, for your efforts.

    Reply

  50. David Ray Griffin says:

    Some of the critics above have employed one of the most
    common logical fallacy: using an ad hominen argument. In this
    case, it takes the form of arguing that, because I was a professor
    of theology (rather than, say, physics or engineering), my
    arguments can be dismissed. As one learns in logic classes,
    however, one must deal with one’s arguments. In this case, one
    must judge whether my evidence and arguments are valid.
    Most people, of course, do appeal to the opinion of people who
    clearly do have the credentials to make judgments about the
    issue at hand. If one is really interested in whether my
    arguments might be sound, one could look at the lists of people
    who have endorsed my books. My 2010 book entitled “The
    Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center” was endorsed by an
    architect (a member of the AIA), an engineer who has been
    elected to the National Academy of Engineering, an engineer who
    was the director for research engineering at the NASA Dryden
    Flight Research Center, a physicist who was elected to the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science), and an
    attorney.
    All of these people, in other words, seem to think that my
    evidence and arguments are good.
    David Griffin

    Reply

  51. David Ray Griffin says:

    Some of the critics above have employed one of the most
    common logical fallacy: using an ad hominen argument. In this
    case, it takes the form of arguing that, because I was a professor
    of theology (rather than, say, physics or engineering), my
    arguments can be dismissed. As one learns in logic classes,
    however, one must deal with one’s arguments. In this case, one
    must judge whether my evidence and arguments are valid.
    Most people, of course, do appeal to the opinion of people who
    clearly do have the credentials to make judgments about the
    issue at hand. If one is really interested in whether my
    arguments might be sound, one could look at the lists of people
    who have endorsed my books. My 2010 book entitled “The
    Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center” was endorsed by an
    architect (a member of the AIA), an engineer who has been
    elected to the National Academy of Engineering, an engineer who
    was the director for research engineering at the NASA Dryden
    Flight Research Center, a physicist who was elected to the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science), and an
    attorney.
    All of these people, in other words, seem to think that my
    evidence and arguments are good.
    David Griffin

    Reply

  52. Bill Pearlman says:

    Carroll is a big fan of Falk and a truther. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

    Reply

  53. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “It’s embrassing enough to have the US government act the way it does, but it makes it even more embrassing when our officals are so incompetent they can’t even do a hatchet job on someone without messing it up by revealing their real motive and making themselves look even stupidier”
    Which makes it doubly troubling that Steve jumped right in the slime wagon with Rice. Its ironic, really, that he is so miffed at what Rubin said about him, then he turns right around and gives Falk the same treatment. Disappointing behaviour, to say the least.

    Reply

  54. Carroll says:

    I just read Falk’s blog.
    I see nothing in it that is offensive and startling.
    Quite the opposite, he is just saying do not leap to conclusion and connect dots without evidence (Tucson) and also that people should question when what they are presented by their governments is incomplete and unconvincing.(911)
    It’s Rice’s letter that is the real story –her concentration on ‘Ahmadinejad” and “Hamas”–which had no mention in Falk’s blog or connection to what he wrote..gee, what was that about?
    LOL… I don’t think we have to be conspiracy theorist to figure it out.. Jewish and Israeli agents are out to smear yet another person who is known not to be a Israeli supporter. And Uncle Hillary had Auntie Rice hop right on it with a really ridiculous and transparent screed.
    I guess the USG came across Falk’s ‘personal’ blog as part of their policy of spying on UN members.
    Or else Rice and her staff spends their time surfing the net.
    It’s embrassing enough to have the US government act the way it does, but it makes it even more embrassing when our officals are so incompetent they can’t even do a hatchet job on someone without messing it up by revealing their real motive and making themselves look even stupidier.

    Reply

  55. questions says:

    p 81 of the pdf file:
    “While this whole paper is worth a read, we focus on the question of seismography, about
    which Mr. Blanchard writes the following:
    [Page 1] Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several construction
    sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the events at Ground Zero, including
    the collapse of all three structures. These measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data
    recorded by other independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.
    [Page 6] In all cases, these recordings indicate single vibration events when the buildings
    collapsed. At no point during 9/11 were independent or secondary vibration events documented
    by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
    This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics
    dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess
    energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at
    least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a
    detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration
    events.”
    ***
    Seismograph data, too.
    sedemetri, please include a summary and maybe I’ll watch.

    Reply

  56. sdemetri says:

    And this is an even more precise analysis:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

    Reply

  57. sdemetri says:

    “You might rethink something.” Not likely. You can’t make the
    implications of gravity just go away.
    To make this easier for you:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/davidchandler911#p/c/206C1F5ED
    FC83824/0/eDvNS9iMjzA

    Reply

  58. questions says:

    What scientists?
    “Dr. David Ray Griffin is an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy ”
    And from Richard Falk:
    “The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). ”
    ****
    Read the 313 page pdf. Check out his links. Look at his credentials. You might rethink something. Maybe.

    Reply

  59. PissedOffAmerican says:

    There have been three notable skyscraper fires since 9/11. The buildings were totally gutted, which left nothing but the steel framework standing.
    Interesting that question’s inevitable bloated responses to this issue ALWAYS single out scientists that offer “debunking” science, yet he casually dismisses the scientists that raise questions. In question’s unusually crisp, clear, and out of character “understanding” of the facts, the only good “science” is the science that supports the official version of the event.
    Note that he is rarely correct in prediction, such as the idiotic spew he dribbled in our faces about the latest round of “talks”, or his rosy depiction of the gulf disaster. And usually, he can’t decide to wipe his ass from the front, or from the rear, seriously perplexed as to what unintended consequences may arise from employing either strategy.
    Yet on 9/11??? He’s rock solid sure that it ain’t no big deal that numerous members of the “9/11 Commission” do not believe we have been told the truth, nor do hundreds of firefighters who were on the scene as the disaster unfolded.
    Truth be told, I haven’t even bothered to read question’s responses on this go ’round, other than a quick skim through. Same old shit.
    Question’s stuff is kinda like Nadine’s. You see the spore scattered everywhere, but you’re so used to the smell it hardly registers anymore, so you just try to avoid stepping in it.

    Reply

  60. Cassandra says:

    Mr. Clemons,
    I’m trying to figure out what it was Prof. Falk said that was so
    terribly offensive. Was it this line?:
    “If we want to be responsible in our assessments, we must
    restrain our political predispositions, and get the evidence.”
    Yes, that is offensive, isn’t it? Seriously, did you even read the
    post in question? Did you notice that is about political
    assassinations in general, with specific reference to Gabby
    Gifford’s attempted assassination?
    Am I also to suppose that you also fully accept the claim by
    Susan Rice that, “The United States is deeply committed to the
    cause of human rights…”? If so, then you might understand why
    some people might think you ridiculous in smearing Prof. Falk.
    Is this the same Susan Rice who convinced the Palestinian
    Authority to vote against the Goldstone Report? Is this the same
    Susan Rice that fervently defends Israeli war crimes? Is this the
    same Susan Rice that has no moral issues with Bagram, Gitmo,
    other black sites used to torture people? Is this the same Susan
    Rice that gladly carries on “productive” relations with tyrants
    around the globe?
    Your hypocritical phony outrage is duly noted, sir.

    Reply

  61. sdemetri says:

    questions, don’t hurt yourself cutting and pasting these old links
    and old quotes. The free fall “thang” that you are addressing here
    is not what I referred to. Your quote is talking about something
    completely different, an older argument.
    Building 7 is documented in the NCSTAR1 report as falling at
    free fall acceleration for the first few seconds. The draft report
    overlooked this salient fact, and was corrected by a physics
    teacher using high school physics. NIST publicly admitted the
    error in the draft report.
    I’m sure you can dredge up more on this old discussion about
    the unprecedented speed at which the North Tower completely
    disintegrated. What you won’t dredge up so easily is an honest
    discussion on the chances of two buildings within minutes of
    each other falling at not only an unprecedented rate of
    destruction, but in the identical fashion as the first.
    Here is the more recent information on free fall with regards to
    Building 7 in terms you should be able to grasp fairly easily.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/davidchandler911

    Reply

  62. questions says:

    From p. 55,
    Below is a quotation from Charles Thurston:
    “Anyone who’s ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members
    remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it
    will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional
    forces. Steel-frame buildings that have fallen in earthquakes also demonstrate this resistance to
    disintegration.”
    ***
    And here’s our hero:
    ****
    “Thurston includes two photographs of structures that toppled over rather than collapsed,
    as if to suggest that the WTC Towers should also have toppled over. What Thurston
    apparently fails to recognize is that his photographs are of concrete structures
    approximately ten stories tall, and that the taller a building is, the less likely it is to topple
    intact. This is because the angular momentum required to topple the structure scales as
    the square of its height, while the ability of a column to withstand such bending decreases
    with the square of its length. As a result, a 100-story building toppling over would
    experience 100 times as much stress as a 10-story building, and columns would be 100
    times less able to resist buckling. This is why tall structures, including those of relatively
    high strength-to-weight such as radio towers, almost never topple without buckling or
    breaking apart in at least one location in mid-air. This also explains why very small
    structures, such as Erector sets, often topple intact. Thurston

    Reply

  63. questions says:

    From page 49 of the 313 page pdf, here’s the free fall thang:
    “The quoted time of collapse of 11 and 9 seconds respectively is taken from NIST FAQ,
    where NIST clarifies the meaning of these two measurements:
    NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse
    initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9
    seconds for WTC 2. [11]
    In other words, these times do not represent the complete collapse time

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    Hilarious!
    First the Truther version:
    “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. If heat is applied to one portion of a steel beam, that
    portion will not be quickly heated up to the temperature of the flame, because the heat will quickly
    be diffused throughout the beam. Also, if that beam is connected to another one, the heat will be
    dispersed to that second beam. And if those two beams are interconnected with hundreds of other
    beams, the heat will be diffused throughout the entire network of beams. [39]”
    *********
    And then our debunker:
    “Steel is actually not a particularly good conductor of heat [40]. Mild carbon steels, such
    as the A36 alloy that dominated the Towers

    Reply

  65. questions says:

    Ok, it’s a 313 page pdf, I suppose he won’t shoot me for putting in a bit more! After all, it’s in the spirit of the original:
    “Dr. Griffin and many of his colleagues have adopted the argument that, since they are
    merely questioning a theory rather than presenting one of their own, only a single
    question must be correct (that is to say,

    Reply

  66. questions says:

    “In this paper, we examine the claims of Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding the NIST
    investigation into the World Trade Center disasters, and find those claims to be
    unfounded. All 18 major claims are discussed and rigorously dismissed, and a further
    analysis of the text reveals an overwhelming density of factual and logical errors. This
    paper refutes Dr. Griffin

    Reply

  67. questions says:

    sdemetri:
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
    And the site home page — all sorts of new goodies since the last time the wave of trutherdom hit here…..
    http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

    Reply

  68. sdemetri says:

    Building 7 is a joke, and not a very good one. Using very precise
    analytical methods it has been proven, even by the National
    Institutes of Standards and Technology, that Building 7 fell at
    free fall acceleration for the first few seconds.
    With gravity a fundamental force of nature, and this object falling
    at the acceleration due to gravity, we are talking about
    fundamental physics.
    Watch any video of that building coming down and it is clear it
    was falling nearly symmetrically. Add the fact that it’s descent
    was at free fall acceleration and you have a conundrum that has
    in no way been answered with any satisfaction by the officials
    charged with that analysis.
    For free fall to occur there was no resistance whatsoever from
    anything previously supporting the building, and this occurred
    simultaneously throughout the building. The symmetry strongly
    implies that.
    This is an enormously significant and unexplained structural
    engineering problem. Falk is right to question the official story
    with problems like this left unanswered. The fundamentals of
    physics don’t go away just because what it implies is politically
    inconvenient.

    Reply

  69. Bill Pearlman says:

    So, 90% of the krauts question the official story. Are you really going to rely that. 90% of them were ski instructors in Switzerland during the war.

    Reply

  70. Elizabeth Woodworth says:

    Richard Falk has only done what any well-informed responsible person pf integrity would do, given the evidence that is now well-known in Europe.
    Military-grade explosives were discovered in the World Trade Center dust by a team of 9 researchers and published in a peer-reviewed science journal.
    The Harrit team

    Reply

  71. Paul Norheim says:

    Ok, Pearlman:
    If you solemnly promise to stop writing such amounts of
    infantile and insulting posts that Steve and his helpers
    currently have to spend more time monitoring your
    activities, than deleting the spammers at TWN, I’ll give you
    that one…
    Deal?
    Yes, at the moment I would be cautious, regardless of
    whether I was wearing the shoes of the land grabbing
    Israeli leadership, the corrupt, money grabbing Arab
    autocrats, or the energy-grabbing Western world. I guess
    even the Chinese may be watching this with worrying eye
    brows. 150$ a barrel would be bad news for the Chinese
    economy.
    On the other hand, being surrounded by dictatorships
    should worry the democracy-loving Israelis too, in the
    long run, and the US and Europe as well. If this indeed is
    some kind of 1989 moment in the history of the Middle
    East, and some of these potential revolutions should
    succeed, this could take many forms:
    Moderate Islamists or secular forces could take over in one
    country, and extremists in a neighboring country. Regular
    coups resulting in status quo (a bit like in Rumania three
    decades ago) is also a likely and not uncommon outcome
    of such events.
    This is difficult to predict; and the political circumstances
    in the respective countries are far less clear and unison
    than was the case in Eastern Europe, where the options
    were a Soviet-dominated communist dictatorship versus a
    capitalist-friendly, US-inspired democracy. In some
    countries, the Imams could even play an encouraging, but
    not dominating role – like the Pope in Poland in the 1980’s
    – who knows?
    And remember: not one country in the Middle East has
    seriously attempted to copy the Iranian model yet – after
    32 years.
    Probably even more important: If they succeed, not only in
    overthrowing the regime in Tunisia and elsewhere, but
    also in achieving something that is more in accordance
    with the will of the people there, this will serve as an
    immense inspiration also for the Iranian opposition in the
    future.
    As for Israel-Lebanon-Syria-Iran, it looks like something
    ugly is building up. And the weakening of an already weak
    PA through the Al Jazeera leeks makes the situation more
    volatile.
    Anything can happen now. Professor Barack Obama will
    probably wait and see – and search for an approach that
    acknowledges the regional complexities of these events.
    The US knows that influencing the events openly could be
    counter-productive. But if the White House insists that its
    presence is toxic, this could also be interpreted as a
    convenient excuse to remain passive, and secretly support
    the decadent Arab autocrats who control and secure the
    oil flow.
    As for the US, this is a conflict where the lofty ideals and
    the energy hunger of the Western world collides. Radical
    Islamism could become a dominant factor in one country
    or another – or just an excuse to secure the energy flow.

    Reply

  72. Bill Pearlman says:

    Who really landed in area 51.
    Paul, serious question. Now that hezbollah has pretty much taken over in Lebanon. And Mubarak is an inch away from a Swiss retirement. Can you at least understand that this calls for a certain amount of caution on the part of Israel before they give up the west bank ridge lin and the golan height. Give me that one.

    Reply

  73. Paul Norheim says:

    “Posted by nadine, Jan 25 2011, 6:41PM – Link
    T-U-N-I-S-I-A
    L-E-B-A-N-O-N
    E-G-Y-P-T
    S-A-U-D-I A-R-A-B-I-A”
    For once I have to agree with Nadine.
    And let me add:
    A-L-G-E-R-I-A
    Y-E-M-E-N
    L-I-B-Y-A…..
    What do you think, Steve:
    Is this 1989?
    Or is it 1979?
    Or something else?
    As a “progressive realist” (or “gay Machiavelli” if you will), I
    guess you have mixed feelings about the protests in the
    Arab streets – and how the US should approach it?

    Reply

  74. Warren Metzler says:

    I second POA 12:25. There are so many aspects of the official 9/11 story that make it impossible to be true.
    1. The administration is telling us who is guilty by the afternoon of the incident in which everyone dies. Never before in the history of honest police work has a criminal been identified in such a short time, when no bodies were left to be examined.
    2. Although it is claimed that ATC informed NORAD of the hijacking from early on; FOUR hijackings at the same time, all headed eastward, NORAD launches no jets, except at the last minute for the Pentagon attack, and in all likelihood having shot down the Pennsylvania plane. It s far more rational to believe that no hijacking notification was given to ATC from the planes.
    3. The next day, when every non-military plane is grounded, the US government allows the Saudi’s to fly one of their passenger jets around the country to pick all the Ben Laden family members in the US and spirit them out of the country with nary an interrogation.
    4. The claim that the hijackers used box cutters to get through the locked cockpit door, in such an instantaneous time that the pilots were not able to contact ATC and describe this obvious hijacking attempt. How does one use box cutters to get through a door that is thicker than the length of the box cutter blade?
    5. The Bush administration immediately moves into combat mode, that in time leads to an invasion of Iraq, that no honest intelligence person would claim had a role in 9/11.
    6. The Bush administration lied over and over again about many issues. That makes it impossible for them to be telling the truth about this one. No chronic liar is able to tell the truth about a significant event. To become a chronic liar, you have to develop an internal mindset that eliminates all awareness of what is real and true.
    The Bush administration doesn’t have to had a role in the production of 9/11 to immediately see it as asset for its goal to attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein, which we have numerous accounts telling us was big on the agenda from the first couple of weeks after inauguration. So it could have created a veil of secrecy, so as to create a story that would match its Iraq agenda.
    Any one with common sense, and knowledge of guns, knows that Kennedy was shot from the front; at least the bullet that went through his head; (look at the Zapruder film, and note how the head jerks backward, which always is in the direction of the path the bullet takes; plus Jackie climbs on to the back to recover parts of Jack’s head). And that was a major event for Americans. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was in charge of the investigation. And yet they knowingly fabricated a false version. Equally so, the Bush administration had the capacity to create a totally fabricated version for its own purposes.
    Falk should be seen as courageous. And since Susan Rice is a close friend of Obama, this is more evidence that man has not a shred of integrity in his entire body.

    Reply

  75. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Ok people, who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas?”
    Pearlman, why don’t you just shut your ignorant mouth? You’ve already demonstrated what a jackass you are, I doubt many here are in need of further evidence.

    Reply

  76. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Whatever happened on 9/11, anyone that buys into “the official story” is a fuckin’ idiot.
    Kudos to Falk, and the multitude of other notables, first responders, scientists, and proffessionals that are making noise about what a line of shit we have been handed in regards to this epic event.

    Reply

  77. Cee says:

    They were documenting the event.
    http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=urban_moving_systems
    Urban Moving Systems was a participant or observer in the following events:
    Shortly After 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Neighbor Sees Suspicious Men Documenting First WTC Attack and Cheering, Calls Police
    Edit event
    A homemaker living near Liberty State Park, Jersey City, New Jersey sees three men behaving strangely on a nearby roof and alerts the authorities. This homemaker, who has given only her first name Maria, is called by a neighbor shortly after the first plane has hit the WTC and is told about the impact. She has a view of the WTC from her apartment building so she gets her binoculars and watches the disaster. However, she also notices three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. Maria will later recall,

    Reply

  78. Bill Pearlman says:

    Ok people, who was on the grassy knoll in Dallas?

    Reply

  79. questions says:

    Interesting. It’s both worse and better than I figured from Steve’s entry.
    Worse:
    “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.”
    ***
    This is WORSE because no one is arguing that there were no hints and bits of information. The real issue seems to have been a turf-battle essence-of-agency war of every office against every office to have and to hold information for as long as we possibly can.
    So, basically, he just gets the 911 report wrong. There were plenty of hints and nothing was put together. Is this so impossible? Not at all. Look at any disaster that actually happens instead of its being interrupted. You will always end up finding failure points. It doesn’t mean anyone wanted the disaster to happen. It means that systems have failure points, and if we’re lucky or unlucky enough the failure points will become obvious at just the right or wrong time.
    *****
    On the other hand, he does this well:
    “In a way, this process of reflection is natural, even inevitable, but it leads to faulty conclusions. We tend to process information against the background of our general worldview and understanding, and we do this all the time as an efficient way of coping with the complexity of the world combined with our lack of time or inclination to reach conclusions by independent investigation. The problem arises when we confuse this means of interpreting our experience with an effort to provide an explanation of a contested public event. ”
    ******
    Indeed, he points out a nice coping mechanism.
    But in the 9/11 passage, he fails to point out the extent to which he does precisely what he accuse us of doing — using our own sense of the world to interpret complex issues.
    9/11 is complex, for sure. And his simplification of it to the guv had to have known is, well, a simplification.
    There is plenty of scholarship at this point that isn’t conspiratorial, that shows many of the failure points in the communication system, that shows that the unthinkable is often sort of thought but then not really accounted for because humans are a fucked lot.
    So, what do you do with this kind of thing? Meh.
    He’s got a little right, a nice writing style, a nice way to think about how we look for or fail to look for patterns in public disasters.
    ******
    Oh, and then there’s this oversimplification:
    “On one side are those who say that right-wing hate speech and affection for guns were clearly responsible, while Tea Party ultra-conservatives and their friends reaffirm their rights of free speech, denying that there is any connection between denouncing their adversaries in the political process and the violent acts of a deranged individual seemingly acting on his own.”
    First, of course, very very very few people are saying that hate speech and love of guns are clear responsible.
    SECOND, that conjunction is totally FUCKED UP. Love of guns legalizes guns and is at some level a material cause in Aristotle’s sense of material cause (if I have my Aristotle right. It’s not final cause, or formal cause, but maybe there’s one more kind I’m forgetting. Ugh)
    Hate speech would work on a completely different notion of causation, and might be implicated in some other way. Maybe it gave Loughner a sense of final cause. Maybe not. Maybe it fed the crazed money people whom he did read. Maybe it fed the growing delusions in his head. Lots of speculation. But no one of note is simplifying Loughner’s motives, save, perhaps, this author.
    Third, on the right, those totally defending SPEECH and GUNS have a couple of points of interest. First, there’s a lot of political pressure on anyone on the right to be quite deliberately blind to any kind of gun slight or vociferous political debate slight while the power centers of the party are totes into guns and vociferous political debate.
    AND, indeed those on the right, were they consistent, would be celebrating gansta rap along with O’Reilly and/or Limbaugh and/or 911 conspiracy theorists and the solid gold dancers. But they aren’t consistent. Protected speech is threatening Frances Fox Piven (Glenn Beck), unprotected speech is “Fuck tha police” and anything unions might want to say.
    So, once again, Mr. Complexity of the system gets it a little bit oversimplified as he characterizes the national response to a political assassination.
    Oh, and is 9/11 a political assassination, by the way, or an act of war, or an act of terrorism, or a failure of hardening cockpit doors because it would have cost the airlines money? Probably this, too, should be dealt with.
    And then there’s this:
    “Let us remember that what seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred.”
    Depends on what “evidence” means. And I actually mean that. There was a lot of “carefully researched” “evidence” that was bullshit. So, hmmm. He has one source he likes, presents none of the dialogue, the debunking information or anything else that goes along with it.
    His operating assumption is that there is actual EVIDENCE we ignored. Well, the book was published and people who one could trust to take up stuff like this because they are smart enough, aren’t really taking it up. Maybe the bs detectors are on, and maybe this guy is a little bit off. Hmmm. Would that be overly complex or overly simple, in keeping with Occam, or being blinded by Occam’s light?
    In this amazing nation of 300 million creative, brilliant, beautiful people, large numbers of people have read reports, tested, talked, run simulations, interviewed, asked, demanded…. Could we be done with “WHY ISN’T THERE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION?” already. It’s becoming a great deal like “Where’s Obama’s
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    not his “certificate of live birth” and not the birth announcement from the Hawaii newspaper, and not the properly translated line from whatever Aunt about who was there or whatever that was.
    Does this guy fancy himself Orly Taitz? Will there never be enough information? Does he not realize how totally damning the report on 9/11 actually is in that what is most horrific about our system is that it basically was doing what it was supposed to and under that system 9/11 happened? Could you imagine any worse than that?
    ******
    And then, this again, is ok:
    “If a Muslim group has published a list of twenty political leaders in this country, and put crosshairs of a gun behind their pictures, is there any doubt that the Arizona events would be treated as the work of a terrorist,, and the group that had pre-identified such targets would be immediately outlawed as a terrorist organization. Many of us, myself included, fervently hoped, upon hearing the news of the shootings, that the perpetrator of this violence was neither a Muslim nor a Hispanic, especially an illegal immigrant. Why? Because we justly feared the kind of horrifying backlash that would have been probably generated by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O

    Reply

  80. Cee says:

    Falk is right.
    Can anyone tell me why explain away the following?
    Aug 24, 2001: Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a “suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker.” Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying to make sure that Moussaoui does not “take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center.” [Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02]
    Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip.

    Reply

  81. DonS says:

    Can’t even bother to read it, nadine?
    Of course, Falk has been a thorn in the side of regressives like yourself for a long time. Throwing him under the bus seems just about right to you, eh?

    Reply

  82. JamesL says:

    Where to begin?
    Is Ms. Rice speaking for herself or the US? If for herself, those are her opinions, and they are only opinions, no more valid, and no less flaky, than anyone

    Reply

  83. jonst says:

    Steve, have to admit, I don’t understand your extreme reaction. He is question the official version of what happened on 9/11. I don’t see what the problem is with that.

    Reply

  84. JohnH says:

    A LOT of insiders have a LOT of questions about the integrity of the 9/11 Commission.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/anniversary-of-911.html
    Instead of simply dismissing the doubters, isn’t it time to ask the US government to come clean?

    Reply

  85. DonS says:

    correction at 3:55: arguing for open investigation and presentation of EVIDENCE as a means of defusing conspiracy theorists.
    —————————-
    Sure, nothing will satisfy conspiracy theorists, but I don’t think that is where he is headed.

    Reply

  86. IndigoE says:

    I agree with Anthony… Why this knee-jerk reaction every time
    someone questions the absurd official version of 9/11? Indeed, way
    too much effort has goes into policing the grim fairy tale put forth
    by the government. The apparent “self-censorship” is the result of
    attacks on the messenger such as Rice’s attack on Falk.

    Reply

  87. samuelburke says:

    Don’t do that to yourself Steve.
    building 7 is a joke.
    an in our face joke.

    Reply

  88. DonS says:

    “I read “the apparent cover up” to refer to “the reluctance to address . . . awkward gaps” (i.e., not coverup of a plot, crime, etc.)
    Read in the context of Falk’s entire post (oh the pitfalls of blogging) it is not outrageous. Indeed, he makes a sober call for evidence in evaluating such publicly shocking events (the post is about the Rep. Giffords shooting). He makes the eminently sane point that individuals’ perceptions of events are conditioned in large part by their worldview, arguing for open investigation and presentation of as a means of defusing conspiracy theorists.
    Taken on it’s face, what’s so surprising?

    Reply

  89. Observer says:

    Well, Steve, where did all this come from? I’m not
    sure where you’re coming from with your comments and
    your support of Susan’s rather harsh condemnation of
    Richard, who, by the way, has an impeccable record
    of activism for just and righteous causes.
    I’m no conspiracy nut, but all Richard is really
    saying is that the governments account of 9/11 is
    lacking. This opinion is shared by millions of
    people who otherwise can’t be accused of leaning
    toward conspiracy theories.
    To tell you the truth, I’m no admirer of Susan Rice
    and her watered-down diplomacy and her luke-warm
    role as UN ambassador.

    Reply

  90. Anthony says:

    Come on now Steve, now you’re being political!
    Richard has a point. Our government was not entirely transparent about 9/11. The fact that questions remain unanswered does not in itself imply that Falk was engaging in conspiracy mongering. He writes:
    “The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.”
    Don’t let the guerrilla propaganda tactics by the likes of Jennifer Rubin get to you!

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *