9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply

[G2099]

You reach Reynolds at his country home in the hills of Arkansas. His favored rhetorical style is long paragraphs without obvious punctuation: "Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government's case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/2/

[Ezlivin]

1. [T]here's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq w/o...9/11"

And he is absolutely right in this regard.

What is amazing is that a Bush cabinet member has come out to say that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's not as if he's a disinterested outsider. He was in Bush's cabinet. Surely that counts for something.

[BootinUp]

3. I agree, but that is no case for an inside job.

The Neocons believed they had a case for war in Iraq in 1998, right or wrong. They had eight years to make it happen and lie and falisfy intelligence, maybe they could have invaded without 9/11. Point is they thought they had a case IN 1998!!

[John Q. Citizen]

65. The Neocons had a desire to invade Iraq to begin the projection of

US military power and to create a PAX Americana. They were also out of power in 1998. There case wasn't that Saddam was bad, their case was that in a unipolar world, they believed the US should move to become an empire. We needed an enemy, they said, because with the fall of the Soviet Union we now wouldn't continue toward hegemony.

They had an ideology in 1998, not a case to propel that ideology forward.

They didn't obtain a case until 9/11/2001.

[Make7]

73. Same case, different year.

From PNAC's letter to President Clinton in 1998 (emphasis mine):

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Anything sound familiar in there? What was the reason they gave to sell the Iraq War?

- Make7

[John Q. Citizen]

77. 9/11 was their lever in 2003. Which is why so much time and energy

went into convincing Americans of the link between Iraq and 9/11.

Your post is their legal basis which is just a smoke sceen for their ideology.

Their political "lever" so to speak though was 9/11, their "New Pearl Harbor.

[BootinUp]

2. It bothers me quite a bit. But the article is a riot.

The no-planer part especially.

[kerstin]

4. Not nearly as big a riot as the preposterous official 9/11 myth.

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

5. Oh dear.

You can't even say which part is so funny, just the whole thing eh? Just throw out the WHOLE investigation. You and your internet sleuths know better. GMAFB.

[kerstin]

6. What investigation?

[BootinUp]

7. You can read it here:

if you are interested.

home page for the commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/


chapter one "We Have Some Planes"

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

These are the facts, if you want them.

[kerstin]

8. Since you're ostensibly interested in "facts"

how about picking up a copy of "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" by the venerable David Ray Griffin. I think he has more than a passing familiarity with the commission's work.

[BootinUp]

9. What is his standing, profession?

Why do you think he is credible?

[SmokingJacket]

15. Actually, I'm reading his book right now.

The New Pearl Harbor, not the 9-11 Omissions one. He is a professor of theology -- not an expert in any of the specific areas he addresses, but an admirable researcher and builder of argument. He hasn't done any of the original work but has examined and compiled information from lots of sources.

He's incredibly clear-headed, far from a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. Howard Zinn even blurbed the book.

It's worth taking a look at. I'd be interested to hear someone debunk it, because frankly, I can't.

[BootinUp]

16. A compilation of conspiracy theories

is not interesting to me at all.

[SmokingJacket]

26. That's fine, of course.

But what makes you think they're all "conspiracy theories"?

I find some of the things people have come up with about 9-11 to be unbelievable, but other things not unbelievable at all.

It's possible, I think, to sort out the wheat from the chaff. (And incredibly interesting, too.)

Labelling everything that doesn't go along with the official version a "conspiracy" theory is very poor rhetoric. Of course it's *all* theory, and pretty much any crime involves conspiracy, so the term has no actual useful purpose, except to dismiss.

I have yet to meet anyone who claims to believe that the government's version is 100% accurate or explains everything. So why not examine other explanations?

Personally, I think that when (and if) the whole truth does come, none of us will have been completely right.

[BootinUp]

28. Here's what would be interesting

One thing in the 9/11 report shown to be a gross error by direct evidence. Its 585 pages. Surely one thing can be shown to be clearly wrong if this was the coverup of the decade.

I am pretty sure that what you call "not unbelieveable at all" are mostly poor interpretations of physical evidence by people with deep distrust of anything involving a government, but that can in fact be explained as nothing indicating a secret plot that has not been revealed. I have been in the dungeon, there was nothing compelling there.

[SmokingJacket]

30. I don't go down to the dungeon; it's too disorganized and confusing.

But I do plan on reading the 9-11 Omissions and Distortions book, because you're right -- if there's a coverup the official document must be inaccurate in very specific places.

I'll let you know what I find. ;-)

[HughBeaumont]

57. Find something in "The Terror Timeline" that's a gross error . .

by direct evidence.

What you're asking us to do is silly. Of course there aren't any gross errors in the 9/11 Commission Report, because it only states the ridiculously obvious, asks no hard questions and provides absolutely no ANSWERS. More of a challenge is finding anything remotely substantial in that piece of dishpan-deep elephant shit.

[longship]

46. what makes you think they're all "conspiracy theories"?

Griffin has no background that would give him any credibility in this domain. He may be good at philosophy of religion, but he's no engineer, no physicist, and certainly no mathematician. His ideas on what happened on 9/11 are not just wacky, they are down right lunatic. I do not doubt his honesty, only that he knows what the fuck he's talkin' about.

Nobody despises what ChimpCo has done more than me. But to concoct wild stories just because you don't trust the man, is counterproductive. However, that's precisely what Griffin and the other conspiracy theorists do.

[Nozebro]

54. What has Dr. Griffin said that you feel is a "wild story"?

I assume you have read enough about him and that you personally know more about 9/11 than what the Bush administration has said (the changing stories and contradictions notwithstanding).

[John Q. Citizen]

78. Concoct? Why you are calling the man a liar, aren't you? On what

basis?

[orleans]

49. so you'd rather just stick with the OCT? n/t

[Taxloss]

74. Post #10. n/t

[orleans]

50. yes, that was a wonderful book. n/t

[Sinti]

56. Why do you think the 9/11 Commission is "credible"?

I'm simply curious, not trying to start an argument. Can you explain their credibility to me? Why should I believe a word they say, especially where it conflicts with testimony and/or actual real-time news reporting from that day? How many of them should have recused themselves for Godzilla sized conflicts of interest.

Thomas Kean - director of Amerada Hess, has business ties Khalid bin Mahfouz (one financier of 9/11) and is a co-chairman of the Homeland Security Project.

Lee H. Hamilton - is a member of Homeland Security Advisory Council and was the chairman of the committee investigating Iran/Contra, and we all know how much truth they found there.

Richard Ben-Veniste - partner in the law firm which represented the insurance beneficiaries of the multi-billion dollar payout for the World Trade Center destruction.

Fred F. Fielding - worked for John Dean as White House counsel to Nixon - Nixon, the criminal, and Prescott Bush's protege.

Jamie S. Gorelick - current and former partner, along with Commission General Counsel Daniel Marcus, of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, a law firm representing Prince Mohammed al Faisal against the August 2002 lawsuit by victims' families against several Saudi princes and banks.

John F. Lehman - of Tailhook scandal fame. Do you think any one of us would get this position after Tailhook?

James R. Thompson - chairman of Winston and Strawn, whose clients have included American Airlines, Boeing. Do you think AA had nothing to lose here?

Philip Zelikow - member of *'s transition team, and *'s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This is the guy you want calling the shots?

Come on, man. Look at the Family Steering Committee's unanswered questions. Do you think they deserve answers, or are they just more tin foil hat wearing loons?

[Virginia Dare]

62. Not to mention...

portions of the report were redacted at the request of the Saudi Government. The report loses all credibility to me by that point alone.

Of course politicians, government lawyers and lobbyists cannot be considered credible discerners of this evidence. There are way too many omissions and inaccuracies.

[Sinti]

83. It makes me want to cry, especially at times like these

with all this "never forget" stuff I see because of the anniversary. We have "never forget" for the dead, but what about the living, goddammit? It seems like those who are left behind to mourn can kiss ass, unless they're willing to get behind * for a nice photo op. I guess I'm just not religious enough, because I really want earthy justice.

[BootinUp]

76. I looked at the families unanswered questions

I think they wanted to see blame established and people held accountable. Laudable but it wasn't going to happen with the Repukes controlling all 3 branches. As you may know the establishment of blame was not within the scope of the commissions duties (by legislation and undoubtedly demanded by the republicans). Actually that limited scope lends more validity to it in a way. The Commission was involved in gathering facts and making recommendations. Any further investigation for blame will have to be done later when we have more votes in the congress.

As to the credibility of the commission members. I'll give you a short answer. The Commission was established by congressional legislation by our representatives. These are Americans even though they don't share all your political views. Corruption is always possible sure, but just because you don't trust them what does that mean? Not much really. I am sure you have had high opinions of politicians or public persons only to be disappointed by something they have done later. Who is to make these judgments? Our side chose 5 members as you know.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.htm
---------------------------------------
SEC. 603. <<NOTE: 6 USC 101 note.>> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the

<[Page 116 STAT. 2409>]

case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.

(b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
(1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 5 members of
the Commission shall be from the same political party.
(2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the Federal
Government or any State or local government.
(3) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that
individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent
United States citizens, with national recognition and
significant depth of experience in such professions as
governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law,
public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce
(including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.
(4) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the Commission
shall be appointed on or before December 15, 2002.
(5) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall meet and begin
the operations of the Commission as soon as practicable.

[Sinti]

82. Thank you, I appreciate your letting me understand

why you think the commission had credibility. I guess that's good enough for you - massive conflicts of interest be damned. FWIW, in my world having a D next to your name, or being chosen by someone with one doesn't automatically make you honest or anything close to it - you will be known by your deeds not party affiliation. I seriously doubt there will ever be any 'further investigation for blame', unless we make a hell of a lot of noise.

[BootinUp]

84. One last comment

You are misinterpreting me on the credibility question. I think you presume much to identify conflicts of interest because people are involved in a business or law firm, maybe we needed someone from another planet to meet your standards. In my opinon the people who selected the commission members used their research/knowledge of individuals and selected them based on real criteria not whether they had a D but whether they believed they were qualified and had some record of performance, some details you and I can't just google up. Get it?

[Sinti]

85. Actually, I don't personally need Google to tell me about most of these

people's records and experience. Most of them are familiar faces, if you will, in D.C. You don't have to go to another planet to find people who are both qualified and do not have conflicts of interest, and I presume nothing in this case. The facts speak for themselves. You cannot, in the case of Jamie Gorelick for example, represent Prince al Faisal against the victims' families and be an "honest broker" when it comes to any 9.11 investigation. You may think, well, but that's just the law firm not the individual - do you work in a law firm? If you do, I'm sure you understand, this is a big money client, and a big money case, the whole firm (down the mail room) is going to be "supportive" of the client.

I realize I expect better justice than you do. I expect both the letter and spirit of the law to be upheld in America, at all times, regardless of who is in power. I think Republicans should call Republicans on their BS, because they're human beings more than party members. If a Democrat is guilty of wrongdoing I want to see him punished just as much as a puke, that's how my mind works.

The Commission was set up to blame "the system," to find out what was wrong with "the system" and recommend measures to correct it. It was done to reassure people that they were looking into it, and some kind of investigation was being done. Where I come from we call that a white wash, and the Family Steering Committee is an attempt to add more credibility to the Commission itself. Actually answering their questions is not necessary, the fact that they exist and were permitted to give input should assuage our disillusionment with the process.

That's just not good enough for me.

[BootinUp]

94. "The Commission was set up to blame the system, "

And thats good, because you could go and blame anyone you want, if you don't find the faults in the "system" and fix them, you wasted your time. People in government take pride in their work just like anyone else and they try to do the best job they can. You should take some time to consider that they were just as shocked and surprised on 9/11 as everyone else. The leadership, that is the President and the Cabinet do have much responsibility because they ignored warnings, they thought it was a small threat. That was a great mis-judgment, very great.

So how many of the commission members have you talked to, or have worked with? Perhaps someone you have worked with knows them and made a recommendation to you. Cause if you are just an internet warrior that goes around accusing Government officials of being evil and corrupt then I don't consider your opinion that valuable on the matter. And I don't think the family members have the knowledge needed to fix the system, nor do journalists and academics that have no experience in intelligence and the military. Its a job that requires the right experience.

When people here can't read about the sequence of events that day and understand that the planes could not be stopped, how can they understand the need to re-think the system. Its easier to just look at everything as a secret conspiracy. I am just expecting too much.

[Sinti]

99. THe system wasn't broken before 9/11. The system prevented any

incident from occurring in 2000, the millennium, (and there were a myriad of plans, and attempts) because it was working. You know, or should if you look just at the FBI whistle-blowers' interviews and such, the people above the investigator level prevented any investigation, they stopped them, thwarted them, fired people, threatened others, and that was before 9/11. It's why 9/11 happened.

I'm not an "Internet warrior," and I take offense at this. I am AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. We live in a democracy, not an oligarchy, regardless of what you see on your TV. When American Citizens see corruption and illegality in the behavior of their elected officials they should shout it from the rooftops and demand eradication of the same, IMO. You don't like it, too bad for you. I don't need you to "value my opinion."

Actually, I've conversed in person with some of these folks. My family's business was congressional reporting - I grew up hanging out on the Hill. I did the biz myself for a while until I couldn't take it anymore, because the majority of them lie so very much and the partisanship was just so overwhelming. That doesn't make me an expert, but I think you're confused over how people get selected for positions such as these.

Yes, Jim, you're expecting far too much. You expect people to just swallow this whopper whole, without asking any further questions. Regardless of what happened on 9/11, the ensuing cover up IS a conspiracy of pretty substantial proportions. I'm certain you'll say it's not - and I'm happy to agree to disagree in advance.

You're happy with a world that offers you excuses and hand-waving in lieu of justice - I want a world where there is Justice.

[BootinUp]

101. asking questions or making unfounded allegations?

I have no problem with folks asking questions or getting involved in the process. The difference is people are saying the process is completely worthless and we can believe nothing from the democratically elected government. That is wrong in terms of actually damaging the process and causing many people to avoid politics instead of being involved. They don't think it is worth the effort since it is all a lie anyways or some similar rationale. Both sides accuse the other of lieing at the drop of a hat and the slimmest of evidence. Everyone is cheapened and smeared. The quality of candidates suffer cause good people stay away from it.

JMHO of course.

[smiley]

112. now that's funny

"The difference is people are saying the process is completely worthless and we can believe nothing from the democratically elected government."

I wouldn't call the bush administration democratically elected. supreme court chose him in 2000 and in 2004 there were some major discrepancies in ohio. how soon we forget...

[BootinUp]

95. conflicts of interest

Heres my take on that point specifically:

Kean - Yeah, I think he does put himself in positions that are questionable. I am not familiar with the Homeland Security Project, sounds like a paid position in the private sector? When did he join it? Ties to Saudis do not impress me a whole lot, business ties to people who have not declared they are criminals or have not been convicted or even charged does not make one a criminal or even unethical.

Hamilton - Don't follow you at all. Please explain the conflict of interest.

Ben-Veniste - I am not too impressed with Mr. Veniste. Sometimes he sounds intelligent other times not so much. But as to conflict of interest, I need to know more about which beneficiaries you mean. And how the Commission work represented a conflict.

Fielding - So you don't trust him, think hes a crook, apparently others disagree with you and didn't object to his placement.

Gorelick - Very impressed with her. Think she is the smartest on the council and asked the toughest questions. Possible conflict of interest. I note that this is a humungous law firm with a history of high profile cases. I think in these times its easy to look at a large law firm and make this claim. If you wanted the 9/11 commission to reveal all the Saudi money connections you were dreaming. This stuff is going to be handled ehind the scenes. As you know Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and dealing with their terroism connections is a difficult issue.

Lehman - Don't really follow you. That was like 25 years ago? He was just there at this annual event right? No direct involvement in any of the illegal behavior. Just stupid and arrogant.

Thompson - Could be a conflict of interest. Why doesn't someone ask him directly about it?

Zelikow - Its not our call really by the legislations rules for selecting members.

[longship]

18. However, you'll find few facts in Griffin's stuff.

He's another one of those conspiracy kooks who thinks that airliners didn't hit the buildings and that the towers had explosive demolition charges installed in them.

Ridiculous.

[StraightDope]

35. I think that the tower was wired...

...with demolition charges. Thermite cutting charges, specifically. It's too goddamn convenient that both WTC 1 & 2 fell at free-fall speed right into their own footprints, not to mention that WTC 7 fell after 5:00 P.M., and hadn't been hit by a plane. Until I've ssen good explanatory evidence accounting for these anomalies, I'll continue to believe in LIHOP/MIHOP.

[longship]

36. There's a problem. They did not fall at free fall.

This is a deception by the conspiracy kook crowd, and they know it.

Look at these pictures.

Do you see the debris falling around the collapsing floors like a waterfall?
That debris is falling in free fall; it has to be unless physics stopped working on the morning of 9/11.

In the left picture one can figure that the lowest chunk of debris (the large chunk at the left side) may be a good 20-30 stories ahead the collapsing floors. That's the difference between free fall and the collapse. There's no other way to interpret this consistent with physics.

A physicist has taken the trouble to analyze the collapse mathematically to determine if catastrophic collapse is consistent with what we see. His name is Dr. Frank Greening and his papers are (as far as I know) published, meaning they've stood up to peer review. I have reviewed them all and I must state that they are very rigorous.

WTC Report -- In depth analysis of momentum and energy transfer in the collapse with an emphasis on correlating the results with collapse timing. Totally debunks the free fall arguments.
www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Energy Transfer Addendum -- Expansion of the above paper to account for crushing of concrete.
www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

NIST Report -- Dr. Greening's rebuttal to the NIST scientific report.
www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

WTC Thermite -- Dr. Greening's response to Mr. Jones' (BYU physics instructor) claim that thermite was present.
www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Sulfur -- Dr. Greening discusses sources of sulfur in the WTC collapse.
www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Tipping of WTC 2 upper section -- Mathematical explanation of the top section tip-over of WTC 2.
www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

These are very rigorous documents. Don't expect to dismiss them with hand-waving arguments. They contain complete explanations and full citations to other peer reviewed literature. However, they can be very instructive to interested individuals who are really after the truth.

This is good science. I hope you find it helpful to understand the dynamics of the WTC tower collapse.

[StraightDope]

39. I will examine these thoroughly tomorrow.

I truly appreciate the links to such a wealth of information. In the interim, has any of your research satisfactorily explained the anomaly of building 7's collapse? Oh, and I must confess, a physicist I'm not, but I don't buy the "plane impacts plus jet-fuel catalyzed fire weakened the structural steel too much" argument. I forget the name of the building, but a 78 storey building in Spain burnt over 20 floors for EIGHTEEN hours, and didn't collapse. Sure it wasn't hit by a plane, but I don't think that that makes much of a difference.

[longship]

42. Here are some things to consider.

First, Dr. Greening is not too comfortable with the jet fuel thing either. He speculates on another mode that would bring about the collapse. This does not have the rigor that his other analyses have, but it is something of importance to him, especially since there is quite a bit of dispute in the matter. What *did* start the collapse?

Dr. Greening's papers are mathematical and quite rigorous. I suspect that many will find them daunting. But they do answer many questions that people are asking.

The Spanish building fire has absolutely no bearing on the WTC. In fact, no other building collapse or fire in history has any bearing at all on this case. The WTC towers were unique in their construction and design. The situation on 9/11 was likewise unprecedented, fuel-laden 767-200's crashing into the the world's tallest twin towers at over 500 mph? Anybody who compares the 9/11 WTC collapse to any previous building disaster is selling you moonshine.

I agree with most everybody here, that there are too damned many unanswered questions. But we can only answer the questions by being grindingly thorough. Just so stories about controlled demolitions ain't gonna do it, at least not for me.

[StraightDope]

43. I just finished the article on aluminum's role...

...in the WTC collapses. Excellent hypothesis, firmly grounded in good chemistry. I look forward to reading the other documents. That having been said, I would like to see a series of controlled experiments conducted in the manner suggested at the end, pulverized concrete, wall board, furnitre, aluminum, etc. ignited with jet fuel. I would also like to see someone more mathmatically gifted than I conduct an analysis of just how the quantity of aluminum available for the reactions discussed related to the total amount of material. It's kind of refreshing to see independent analysis that's not from a government stooge whose rationale invariably sees to be, "Trust us! We're the Government!" Greening is a damn good scientist in any case, and seems to be truly concerned with nothing but finding out the truth.

[longship]

44. Those studies have been done, but you might not like them.

Funded by NIST and FEMA. However, they've been published independantly which gives them some credibility, I presume. MIT participated as well as others. These studies are cited in many WTC papers although I've not seen them and have no access to them. If you have a university library nearby, you might be able to access them. There's a real dearth of published papers available freely on the net. Too bad.

[StraightDope]

45. I'm actually in Morgantown, WV...

The home of WVU. Go Mountaineers! It'd be nice to see an independent standards body like the UL conduct these experiments, I think that Monday I'm going to make a foray to the Chemistry department of the University and discuss this with some chemists. Hell, there's gotta be a grad student in materials science who would be interested in doing something like this. Do you have links to the NIST and FEMA studies? Despite the fact that their reliability as sources is compromised, I'd still like to see what they have to say.

[longship]

47. You might want to talk to some structural engineers.

They're the ones who have done the kind of destructive testing which would be the most helpful.

I wonder how many people have seen concrete fail catastrophically. It's pretty spectacular, happens in a split second with a disproportionally loud bang. I imagine steel acts similarly, but I'm no engineer. Thems the dudes (or dudettes) you want to talk with.

[AZCat]

51. Steel failures are startling also.

Even the more ductile metals never fail to make me jump when they fail. In tensile tests I can see the necking right before the failure (like with aluminum, for example) but it's so quick and loud that I'm still surprised at the violence.

[Blue Belle]

64. Did you read the book?

Just curious.

[petgoat]

87. He can not have read the book and said what he said.

Longship in the maelstrom...... down the drain.

[Blue Belle]

107. That's what I thought...

:eyes:

[petgoat]

88. You can read "the 571-Page Lie" instead.

115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report.

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

[frylock]

21. oh my..

:spray:

[Canuckistanian]

27. I read that to my kids at night

It's a comforting, lullabye kind of story. Puts 'em to sleep every time. Even better than Seuss.

But after the kids are asleep, I listen to David Ray Griffin for an adult's perspective and some perfectly reasonable questions.

[BootinUp]

29. To each his own. n/t

[Taxloss]

10. Oddly enough, I was writing about 9/11 conspiracists on

another site only today, and I said this:

The thing that you have to keep repeating to people - and yourself - is that these conspiracy theories are most often defended using a false dichotomy: "You either believe the conspiracy theory, or you believe the official story. The official story is flawed, so the conspiracy theory must be the case." That will always be the first line of defence, and casual sceptics don't often get past it.

Note how the MIHOP crowd calls its opponents "OCTers" - believers in the "Official Conspiracy Theory". It's one vast strawman, and at least three-quarters of them know that it is, but they repeat it in the knowledge that they are lying because it deters sceptics from tackling them. No one wants to be associated with the political whitewash that is the official version.

Believing that MIHOP is rubbish does not mean you believe the "official story".

[salvorhardin]

12. The OP missed the best quote out of the article

You know, the one where Chip Berlet says exactly what you, greyl and myself have been saying all all this time. Of course, because Berlet doesn't believe any of the paranoid conspiracy theories he *must* believe the "official" conspiracy theory, right? Uh, no.

Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials.

But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists.

"They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," Berlet says over the phone. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet . That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard."

Now comes a loud sigh.

"I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it," he says. "My vision of hell is having to review these books over and over again."

[Taxloss]

13. LOL! He's also tired of endlessly repeating himself. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

71. So what do you believe? I have had a very hard time getting people who

don't believe in the False Flag theory and who also claim they don't believe the Official Conspiracy Theory to tell me.

A. What they believe is false and ommited from the 9/11 report.

B. What they believe the true events are that led to, and took place on 9/11.


Thanks for clearing this up, at least as you as an individual stand.

[Nozebro]

80. If you don't believe the O.Story, anything else IS MIHOP. n/t

n/t

[Sinti]

86. Just curious, what do you believe, if I may be so bold as to ask? n/t

[petgoat]

89. "Believing that MIHOP is rubbish does not mean

you believe the "official story".

Nobody says it does. But the fact that y'all spend all your time
debunking and absolutely not one minute propounding your own
affirmative vision of what you think happened, forgive some
skepticism about your claims.

[AZCat]

90. Is an "affirmative vision" required?

Perhaps some of us are just skeptics - isn't that enough?

[petgoat]

92. The skepticism demonstrates itself only in attacks on fellow

skeptics.

[AZCat]

93. Who else is there?

There aren't a lot of Bush admin. supporters here in this forum, so who do you expect us to question?

Nice framing, by the way - using the word "attack". I don't agree with your characterization of the CT crowd as skeptics, either - most seem way too eager to accept a theory, as long as it's not the OCT.

[John Q. Citizen]

96. So you have no beliefs about 9/11? Is that your position? Only that

everyone else's beliefs are in error?

That strikes me as absurd.

[AZCat]

97. That's a horribly flawed interpretation of "skeptic". n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

100. Apparently you consider yourself a skeptic? Does that mean you hold no

conclusive thoughts or opinions to events about 9/11?

Or does that mean that you just won't share them, instead opting to only question others thoughts and opinions?


Once at a smal gathering at my house a young woman who was there noticed I like Bob Dylan and the Beatles, and she told me she thought Dylan and the Beatles suck. So I asked her, "Well, who do you like to listen to?" She wouldn't say. Her friend who had heard the discussion said, "Forget it, she won't tell you." her friend was right.

I never thought of the Dylan Beatles basher as a skeptic, but now I'm wonering.

[AZCat]

105. Why don't you spend a little time researching...

what skepticism actually is - it might answer some of your questions.

FYI - I have shared my thoughts and opinions about various elements of the September 11th arena here before. Perhaps you have just missed those posts.

[John Q. Citizen]

106. re: FYI Prove it! lol

I have researched the many various forms that people who call themselves skeptics embrace. In fact, I would call myself a scientific skeptic, as opposed to say, a hard skeptic.

That said, I suppose if your main interst isn't sharing your opinions about the events of 9/11 and it's aftermath but are more interested in challanging the opinions of others, it makes for a boring coversation, to say the least.

yawn...

[AZCat]

113. Prove it?

You are a donating member - learn to use "advanced search" (if you need help I can explain how to use it).

I'm not interested in challenging opinions - you're welcome to whatever opinions you have. I'm interested in promoting explication and verification (or rejection) of the various hypotheses that appear in this forum - anything else is just cheerleading.

[Nozebro]

98. Yes & isn't there a forum here for "just skeptics"? An OCT'er said so.

You'd be much appreciated around these parts, I guarantee it.

BTW - what exactly is "affirmative vision"? NEVER MIND. Answer it on the forum designed for OCT'ers.

[AZCat]

104. Don't ask me - ask petgoat.

He's the one who used the phrase.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. A "Fraud of Historic Proportions"

9/11 Kean Commission Report Exposed as 'Fraud of Historic Proportions' on 9/11 Fifth Anniversary by Former 'Star Wars' Program Director

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: Lynn Pentz, 310-927-5966, [e-mail]

News Advisory:


WHAT: 9/11 Kean Commission Report Exposed as 'Fraud of Historic Proportions' on 9/11 Fifth Anniversary by Former 'Star Wars' Program Director and Top 9/11 Authors and Researchers at National Press Club Press Conference Just Before Kean-Hamilton Luncheon Address, Edward R. Murrow Room, 9:30 a.m.

WHEN: Sept. 11, 9:30 to 11 a.m.

WHERE: National Press Club, Edward R. Murrow Room

SPONSORS: McClendon Group, 9/11 Truth Los Angeles and 9/11 Truth Monterey Ca.

On the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, three hours before the Kean-Hamilton luncheon address at the National Press Club, the former Air Force officer and director of the 'Star Wars' program who just won Florida's 15th District Democratic primary with 54 percent of the vote on an explicit platform to expose the fraud of the Kean Commission Report, and top 9/11 researchers, authors and activists will present hard proof that the official narrative of the Kean-Hamilton Commission and Bush- Cheney Administration is a fraud of world historic proportions.

Proposed legislation for a new and genuinely independent expert investigation, the first reality-based 9/11 feature film, and the International Grand Jury on the Crimes of 9/11 will be announced.

Continued at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060908/pl_usnw/911_kean_commission_report_exposed_as__fraud_of_historic_proportions__on9_11_fifth_anniversary_by_former__star_wars__program_di

[Taxloss]

14. Improved headline: "9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply ...

... but their theories don't add up"

[AntiFascist]

19. One thing I'm sure most people would agree on...

9/11 was not an accident and it surely was the result of some form of conspiracy. One theory that does add up: who was aiding and ultimately funding the terrorists?

[Taxloss]

20. Well, the whole operation cost about $200,000.

So it was spectacularly economical.

[BootinUp]

22. Wasn't it though? I came up with a simple check list for the terrorists

1. Keep this a secret only with our other terraist buddies
2. Collect money from rich buddies
3. Order tickets ahead of time (4 tickets please)
4. Hide knife blades inside other harmless metal object
5. Board plane
6. Assemble knife blade into plastic handle
7. Threaten to kill people if they don't do as we say
8. Turn off autopilot/transponders
9. Steer plane per practice sessions of many months (years?)
10. Praise to Allah!

Now add in a lot of incompetence, a President who didn't believe in swatting flies, and the fact you can't stop airplanes in mid air and wammo.

[Virginia Dare]

63. an omission, a question, and an inaccuracy...

an omission:

they had to learn how to fly a commercial airliner

a question:

who were the rich buddies and what did they have to gain from the operation?

an inaccuracy:

you can stop a plane in mid-air

[BootinUp]

79. You can stop it in mid air eh? No falling wreckage even? n/t

[Virginia Dare]

102. Of course there would be wreckage..

I didn't mean to imply there wouldn't be.

[Blue Belle]

66. 11. Keep passport in a place...

where it will mysteriously land on top of a pile of rubble unscathed.

[mhatrw]

108. You forgot number 11.

This one goes to eleven.

11. Count on the USA's entire military, defense, intelligence, justice and customs departments to sleep on the job both before and during your attacks!

[smiley]

109. when did it stop being boxcutters?

[AntiFascist]

23. Certainly well worth the investment...

for Buzzy Krongard and his firm:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

[John Q. Citizen]

72. How did you come up with that figure? Thanks. n/t

[windbreeze]

48. the main question.....who benefitted??? n/t

[AntiFascist]

52. The military-industrial-energy complex....

and now they're promoting Ahmadinejad as the next Hitler. Personally I think it is wasted effort to focus a lot of energy on specific conspiracy theories, the central point should be that terrorists are being recruited so that we will have to fight them in a larger war. Clinton actually did a lot while he was in office to try and nip this in the bud, but neocons would not allow it. Now, the Bush administration is doing everything in its power, under the cover of ineptitude, to stir them up even more.

[mp3hound]

37. Improved improved headline: "9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply...

but their theories don't add up, there are serious divisions among their ranks and several names are subtracted from the membership list of the so-called "scholars".

[FoxOnTheRun]

17. double thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=113937&mesg_id=113937

could be combined

[Nevernose]

24. But can they divide?

:)

[FoxOnTheRun]

25. Judy Wood & Nut Burt Reynolds?

[Bad Penny]

31. I always find it fascinating

how Bush and Cheney et al's official story of 9/11 is the only conspiracy theory so many people are convinced is safe to swallow regardless of the taste or if it might be poisonous. Even people who know Bush hasn't said a truthful word about anything in 6 years are convinced he would never lie about 9/11.

Truly mind boggling. Maybe that's why Hollywood feeds Americans so many crappy movies, after enough of them their brains can't see the forest for the plotholes.

[Taxloss]

32. I refer you to post #10. n/t

[BootinUp]

33. They weren't even on the 9/11 Commission

As to whether they Bush and CHeney would lie, sure. But there is much more to the official report than what they had to say. Mind boggling....yes it is.

[Nikki Stone 1]

34. Oh, I could always multiply. I can add, subtract, and divide too

:)

[kerstin]

38. There seems to be an awful lot of energy expended on this thread

in dissuading people from reading the posted article, to the point of character assassination. David Ray Griffin is a man of substance and intellect; no one could believably call him a "kook." This is a tactic that the left is all too familiar with -- the dishonorable smearing of honorable people for political purposes.

It's also a transparent device to discredit those who threaten to reveal a dangerous truth. Eyewitnesses to the Nazi "death camps" were cynically and calculatedly ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists" in reporting what they had seen or experienced.

Griffin and the other researchers who have come forward to tell their "dangerous truths" know what they are up against. Many of the academics, in particular, are now being persecuted and it is a measure of their integrity that they persist.

[wildbilln864]

40. very well said kerstin!

People need to do some research and see why it is that the official story is so unbelievable! There was ample evidence that they should have known it was about to happen. Read about "Able Danger" and I think the DU dungeon here is very informative if you can weed out the BS. Lots of good links and resources there especially recomend reading Paul Thompson's timeline.


edited 4 spelling.

[kerstin]

59. Thanks, and thanks for tipping me off to the DU dungeon!

Boy the quickest way to draw a crowd around here is to challenge the government-prescribed version of the events of 9/11, isn't it?

How long before the Gestapo begins locking us recalcitrants in a room, pinning our eyelids open, and forcing us to watch "The Pathway to 9/11" over and over again ala Clockwork Orange!

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Don't you worry. I read it all the way through...

Sorry that at the end of it and I find that Griffin guy a bit of a "kook"....

btw, having studied the Holocaust, no eyewitness was ever labelled a "conspiracy theorist" or ridiculed. Trying to put Griffin in the same sentence as them is kind of silly, imo...

[nolabels]

53. n/t

.

[Taxloss]

55. On the contrary, I encourage people to read the article, it's very good.

And it's repugnant that you see fit to paint those who disagree with MIHOP as Holocaust deniers - doubly so considering MIHOP's anti-semitic and neo-fascist "intellectual" roots in the Middle East and among ultra-rightwing freaks of nature like Alex Jones and Rense.

[kerstin]

58. Yet another transparent right-wing tactic.

Now where is that ignore button again?

[Taxloss]

60. .

:nopity:

[AntiFascist]

69. Question....

if I post a criticism of Netanyahu's statement, will I be called anti-Semitic for criticising an Israeli leader?

[Taxloss]

70. No.

On a later edit: I suppose it depends on the criticism. If you, for instance, said "I'm not going to believe anything from that filthy Jew", or whatever, that would be anti-semitic. But I suspect that that is not what you had in mind.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Only one thing to ask. Do you have a source to the characterizations of

the early witnesses of the death camps?

I do remember reading that they weren't widely believed.

Here, I found this.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/camps.html

December 9, 1944 - Americans Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel Edward J. Gully of the American Sixth Army Group arrived to inspect Natzweiler-Struthof. They duly reported their findings: a disinfestation unit, a large pile of human hair, a gas chamber, an incinerator room with equipment intended for the burning of human bodies, a cell room and an autopsy room. After their first-hand look and detailed report to war crimes investigators, they retained a certain measure of disbelief, or "double vision" as Bracker described it. The correlation between the remains of the camp and millions dead could not be grasped even on personal inspection. This "double vision" was as much a story as the discovery of the camp itself. The term came from the first Great War when false propaganda about German atrocities was widely reported. Many remembered this and thought perhaps the reports coming from Europe to the United States were false too. However, Bracker attributed the disbelief to simply the inability to conceive the magnitude and detail of the horror. "Double vision" was typical of many American officers in France, who infuriated local populations by doubting and sometimes even scoffing at stories of German inhumanity.

(snip)
April 11, 1945 - North of Ohrdruf, near the town of Nordhausen, the American Timberwolf Division came upon 3,000 corpses and more than seven hundred barely surviving inmates. Both living and dead lay in two double-decker barracks, piled three to a bunk. The rooms reeked of death and excrement. Victims of starvation and tuberculosis, the prisoners had also suffered from American bombing of the V-2 factories just one week before. Fred Bohm, an Austrian-born American soldier who helped liberate Nordhausen described that his fellow American G.I.'s "had no particular feeling for fighting the Germans. They also thought that any stories they had read in the paper, or that I had told them out of first- hand experience, were either not true or at least exaggerated. And it did not sink in, what this was all about, until we got into Nordhausen." The disbelief of Americans in general, and American soldiers specifically, exemplifies the "double vision" of the human psyche, when one man is forced to face the evidence of torture inflicted on another, only to realize his own helplessness, consequently he represses all emotion, all senses, he becomes numb.


The reason I ask about the term "conspiracy theorist" is because Webster Tarpley in his book Synthetic Terrorism; Made In America credits the modern derogatory use to Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University, 1964

Tarpley has an entire chapter titled

CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE GREAT AMERICAN TRADITION
Here are a couple of excerpts on the history of conspiracy theorists in the US and on the modern anti political thought use of the term.

The neocons, who are themselves a conspiracy, do not like conspiracy theories. But if we look at actual American history, we find conspiracy theories everywhere, even in the most exalted places. The neocon hysteria about conspiracy theories is therefore radically anti- historical, like so much else about this ideological and fanatical faction.

As the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn convincingly argues in his prize-winning study, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), the American Revolution was based on a conspiracy theory which saw the individual actions of George III as all being governed by a singly unifying design, which was to impose tyranny on the UK's North American colonies. This theory had been learned by some among the founding fathers from such British political figures as Edmund Burke, who made similar allegations themselves in a slightly different context. As Bailyn points out, the notion of a conspiracy centered on George III and his court was shared by the broadest spectrum of the founding fathers, from firebrand revolutionaries to cautious right-wingers like Dickinson.

Before the United States ever existed, there was a conspiracy theory. According to Bailyn, the Americans of the eighteenth century

... saw about them, with increasing clarity, not merely mistaken, or even evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in England and in America. The danger in America, it was believed, was in fact only the small, immediately visible part of the greater whole whose ultimate manifestation would be the destruction of the English constitution, with all the rights and privileges embedded in it. This belief transformed the meaning of the colonists' struggle, and it added an inner accelerator to the movement of opposition. For, once assumed, it could not easily be dispelled: denial only confirmed it, since what conspirators profess is not what they believe; the ostensible is not the real; and the real is deliberately malign. It was this -- the overwhelming evidence, as they saw it, that they were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain ends which their words dissembled -- that was signaled to the colonists after 1763; and it was this above all else that in the end propelled them into Revolution. (Bailyn 95)

This conception was endorsed by George Washington in the Fairfax. Resolution of 1774, written in collaboration with George Mason. Here Washington asserted the existence of a "regular, systematic plan" of oppression. In conformity with this plan, the British government was "endeavoring by every piece of art and despotism to fix the shackles of slavery upon us." Washington wrote in a letter of this time that "beyond the smallest doubt ... these measures are the result of deliberation ... I am as fully convinced as I am of my own existence that there has been a regular, systematic plan formed to enforce them." (Bailyn 120)

Thomas Jefferson agreed; he wrote in a pamphlet of 1774 that although "single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day ... a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." (Bailyn 120) This language prefigures the final text of the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams estimated in 1774 that "the conspiracy was first regularly formed and begun to be executed in 1763 or 4." At other times Adams traced the conspiracy back to the 1750s and the 1740s, mentioning in this context Governor Shirley of Massachusetts. According to Adams, the proponents of the conspiracy were exchanging letters that were "profoundly secret, dark, and deep;" this was a part of what Adams called a 'junto conspiracy." (Bailyn 122)

(snip)
Tarpley goes on to chronicle Abraham Lincoln fight against the conspiracy hatched by James Polk to foment war against Mexico

Later he traces the origins of the negative connotation of the term "Conspiracy Theorist,"
(snip)

THE PARANOID STYLE

Objections to the 9/11 imposture in its official version are often dismissed as conspiracy theories. Supporters of the official version use this a term of contempt, even though it is clear that to label a point of view as a conspiracy theory is in no way to refute it. The charge or insult of conspiracy theory is not only demagogical, but also intellectually dishonest, since the official version, involving as it does Bin Laden and al Qaeda acting at a distance from remote caves with the help of laptops, represents a conspiracy theory of a peculiarly fantastic type. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that a conspiracy theory which is endorsed and embraced by the controlled corporate media is no longer a conspiracy theory, but rather respectable, and presumed true. Minority views which are not supported by the controlled corporate media remain conspiracy theories, and cannot be credible, no matter how true they can be shown to be. To these applies the warning issued by the deranged prevaricator in the White House:

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. (UN General Assembly, November 10, 2001)

The entire controversy about conspiracy theory is a diversion, and is generally conducted in such a way as to lead away from the facts on the table. Charges of conspiracy theory represent in their own way a form of ideological terrorism, and grow out of the intellectual climate of cold war McCarthyite witch-hunts. Conspiracy itself has a history as long as humanity, since it is one of the primordial forms of political action. Machiavelli writes about conspiracy in a long chapter of his Discourses; what he means by conspiracy is a plot to kill a ruler and to seize power in his place, like the conspiracy organized by the Pazzi family against the Medici in the 1480s. Conspiracy is also an active category of the Anglo-Saxon common law.

Page 312

Conspiracy theory as a term of opprobrium is relatively new. It dates back to the work of Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University. Hofstadter was himself a kind of neocon ante litteram who became a direct beneficiary of McCarthyism: he took over a job vacated by Prof. Philip Foner, who had come under ostracism as a member of the Communist Party USA. In his essay on "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1964) and in his other writings Hofstadter took issue with the 1880s-1890s prairie populist critique of international bankers, a critique which today seems prophetic in its foreshadowing of the destructive shenanigans of Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England during the interwar period (Norman was part of Brown, Shipley in London, the home office of Prescott Bush's Brown Brothers, Harriman in Wall Street) and of the International Monetary Fund during the entire postwar period. But for Hofstadter, radical critics of Anglo- American finance oligarchy were paranoids. His essay is doubly suspect because it appeared in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, and seemed to suggest that the many critics of the Warren Commission report were also -- paranoids. An interesting problem was posed for Hofstadter in that sophisticated western Europe, where populist paranoia was supposedly less strong, was even more critical of the Warren Commission report than was the alleged US citadel of paranoia.

Hofstadter's favorite habit of tarring political forces he did not like, such as the populists, with the brush of paranoia appears illegitimate. The paranoid typically fears that there is a conspiracy afoot specifically against himself. For Hofstadter, this notion becomes impossibly broad: anyone who thinks he sees a conspiracy anywhere is ipso facto a paranoid. What is lost here is the necessary reference point in reality: is there a conspiracy going on or not? US Attorneys have been proving the existence of conspiracies to juries for a long time, and they have generally escaped the charge of paranoia.

Read this whole chapter (XII) or the whole book free at the online library
http://www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormadeusa.htm
Free registration required.

So, it seems that people who can't or won't fathom horror and evil on a massive planned scale have been refered to as having "Double Vision." For many reasons they just can't conceive of a faction of our government/military/industrial/business sectors as capable of great evil. We also see that "conspiracy theorists" founded the US, Saved the Union, (left out for space considerations) and have only fairly recently been villianized by Neocons and pre-Neocons. (I didn't put in the critique of Daniel Pipes due to space considerations.) But I urge both those who embrace the false flag theory of 9/11 and those who reject it to at least look at Tarpley's arguments.

[Nozebro]

81. Thanks for posting this extremely important information. I urge and hope

that everyone here will read it and take it to heart.

[MervinFerd]

61. Schism-9/11--Truthers, NoPlaners, Thermitians, Smithereeners, LIHOP,

MIHOP, SOCKHOP, BUNNYHOP, FLIPFLOP......

[Nozebro]

67. You left out the most important one: False Flag OCT PSYOP

Remember to take a mirror with you next time.

[Taxloss]

68. Post #10 ... n/t

[rman]

91. It's "MI 6" not "M-16"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI6
The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), more commonly known as MI6 (originally Military Intelligence Section 6), or the Secret Service or simply Six, is the United Kingdom's external security agency. Insiders sometimes refer to it as box 850 which comes from its old postal box number.

SIS is responsible for the United Kingdom's espionage activities overseas, as opposed to MI5 which is charged with internal security within the UK. It was founded in October 1909 (along with MI5) as the Foreign Section of the Secret Service Bureau.

[peacetalksforall]

103. I find it amazing that people can hold up the Comm Report as

gospel. The purpose of the Comm was the only one PNAC would allow - to investigate the agencies of the government and make recommendations. It was not a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation has not been allowed. And a campaign to ridicule those who think we need one is laughed at and poked at by design.

I find it amazing that so many people put their trust in the hands of Washington politicians and profiteers after all we learn.

I find it amazing that someone would put down a theologian/philospher as unsuited to write a book containing something that happened to us. Authors worth their honor go to experts and document what they say. Who said any one person is an expert in everything they write? Their talent is in their drive to bring it together in readable and credible form. Dismissing Griffin for his profession is laughable.

I find it amazing that people would have zero reason to doubt people who lie, order torture, steal, and bomb with glee.

[pauldp]

110. Well said. nt

[Nozebro]

111. Ever considered that maybe they're just pretending to be upset?

Maybe they're just practicing their debating skills and brushing up on how to spin something so it can be labeled a logical fallacy. You know, like how a good lawyer doesn't necessarily have to "believe" in their client's innocence in order to zealously protect their legal rights and make sure they get a fair trial. I know, I know. What about the lawyer's fee - what role does it play as far as influencing a lawyer to advocate for a client whose conduct or beliefs the lawyer may personally disagree with? Well, fair enough. Figure it out for yourself. It's not hard.