Patterico's Pontifications


L.A. Times: Our Article on the Effectiveness of Waterboarding Leaves Out the Biggest Success of Waterboarding

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 7:13 am

The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to closely evaluate harsh interrogations:

The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles.

You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about.

You’d be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech,

Bush said that “alternative” interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk.

Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to “talk”? It means that we got him to “disclose details of massive plots against the United States.” According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives.

How do you make it though an entire article on the effectiveness of harsh interrogation and not even mention that little tidbit?

Ask the geniuses at the Los Angeles Times.


  1. They are covering for Pelosi and Harmon, that is why. Obama doesn’t need the distraction relating to “who knew what and when?” regarding the interrogation hole he has dug for himself. Pelosi is either using selective memory and/or plausible deniability. Either way, she is engaging in the politics of deception to further her agenda.

    The east coast has the NYT. The West Coast has the LAT. Both are seeing precipitous declines in economic viability for their efforts.

    Comment by David Hampton (9d1bb3) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:39 am

  2. [...] post how the Washington Post gets the facts of the Library Tower terror plot story wrong, and in this one on how the LAT fell down on the job, [...]

    Pingback by More on the disrupted LA Library Tower terror plot « Sister Toldjah (52e518) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:12 am

  3. Sorry, ‘Cleo. Law and Order is about 3-4 years ahead of you.

    This hard-hitting analysis is why the LATimes just keeps rolling in the readers.

    Comment by Techie (9c008e) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:25 am

  4. I wonder how many people working in that tower subscribe to the LA Times.

    Semanticleo, congress had ample opporuntity to define waterboarding as torture and they declined. Sorry but “war crime” is not defined as “whatever the liberals find it convenient to oppose at any given moment.”

    Comment by tim maguire (4a98f0) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:38 am

  5. Methinks there is an elementary reason for this

    Judging by your post, that relates to the level of schooling you achieved.

    Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:45 am

  6. Every time MissKKKleo lies, a caterpillar gets its wings.

    Comment by JD (e66bfa) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:52 am

  7. The LA Times seems to have begun with the premise that no good information can come from torture, and the facts must be put on a Procrustean bed to fit that premise. That’s propaganda, not journalism.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (125303) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:57 am

  8. “This hard-hitting analysis is why the LATimes just keeps rolling in the readers.”

    Exactly why the readers here, (including you) and the brain trust at Just One Minute, don’t answer the question.

    Anyone else follow this leap of logic? The LATimes shallow and lacking coverage is, what, our fault?

    Comment by Techie (9c008e) — 4/27/2009 @ 9:05 am

  9. THe sad fact is that at least half of what we know about al Qeada came from the enhanced interrogation of KSM and the other two. This was done in the year after 9/11 when we were still trying to learn information that the CIA failed to uncover during all the years of the Clinton Administration while we were attacked again and again. Had the CIA not failed and had Clinton not blocked cooperation between CIA and FBI, we might never had needed the techniques. John Derbyshire, at NRO, has some thoughts that I share.

    If there is an attack, there will be hell to pay.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 4/27/2009 @ 9:12 am

  10. #9, Brother Fikes wrote: “The LA Times seems to have begun with the premise that no good information can come from torture, and the facts must be put on a Procrustean bed to fit that premise. That’s propaganda, not journalism.”

    File this one away under “Water: Wet.”

    Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 4/27/2009 @ 9:14 am

  11. Maybe Cleo can buy all the copies of LAT that we no longer read. Yup, that’ll solve it.

    Comment by trentk269 (ec7ce3) — 4/27/2009 @ 9:28 am

  12. This might not be the exact article I wanted to insert this in, however it was handy. Experts on both sides of the political spectrum have stated torture is not effective in obtaining useful information from enemies. Since the information obtained from the AQ members we held captive was accurate, informative and timely. By definition, waterboarding cannot be torture as it worked. So either the experts are wrong about the effectiveness of torture, which I doubt, or waterboarding is effective therefore not torture.

    Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (57cae1) — 4/27/2009 @ 9:52 am

  13. At least the LAT will cover the Commander In Chief, unlike ‘fair and balanced’ conservative news outlets. Let’s see if Patterico makes as big a stink about this idiocy as with CNN web clips.

    Fox is just as wrong as CNN.

    Fox rejects Obama’s request for airtime

    For the first time since Barack Obama took office, a major broadcast network is refusing to grant the president’s request for primetime coverage.

    Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:53 pm

  14. [...] leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog: The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to [...]

    Pingback by LA Times Leaves Out That Waterboarding Helped Thwart Terror Attack… on Los Angeles | Got Access News (385391) — 4/27/2009 @ 3:31 pm

  15. [...] leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog: The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to [...]

    Pingback by LA Times Leaves Out That Waterboarding Helped Thwart Terror Attack… on Los Angeles (ef1f42) — 4/27/2009 @ 3:35 pm

  16. [...] leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog: The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to [...]

    Pingback by LA Times Leaves Out That Waterboarding Helped Thwart Terror Attack… on Los Angeles | Latest Technology News - Business News And Expert Advice (385391) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:13 pm

  17. [...] leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog: The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to [...]

    Pingback by LA Times Leaves Out That Waterboarding Helped Thwart Terror Attack… on Los Angeles | Business Opportuinty Buzz And Web News (385391) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:55 pm

  18. Torture isn’t what what most intelligence services would use but it is effective as a last resort and when time is essential. The idiots who attack such methods are dull enough to believe it is the first and only tool used. They also ignore that the USMC had to be changed twice because of the effectiveness of torture when employed against US servicemen. Or the fact that every nation employs such methods (well it is well known that intelligence services are populated entirely by saddists who get their jollies torturing people according to the MSM). It also ignores why both the British and German secret services were so effective in WWII. And does anyone doubt the Gestapo deprived their prisoners of their tea and cookies to get them to talk?

    What is amazing is that we have now reduced our interogators to name, rank and serial number and a blank letter accusing the US of using torture. When the next attack comes I’ll laugh at the excuses the wall builders will offer. The question is how many Kool Aid drinkers are there in the population today.

    It seems to be a very large segment.

    Comment by Thomas Jackson (a495b3) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:49 pm

  19. DCSCA #15, so you are going to ignore the times that the networks refused Bush’s request for airtime?

    You are a clown.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:12 pm

  20. This surprises you, SPQR? It is a babbling idiot, unaware of anything outside of Teh Narrative.

    Comment by JD (1e04df) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:19 pm

  21. At least the LAT will cover the Commander In Chief, unlike ‘fair and balanced’ conservative news outlets. Let’s see if Patterico makes as big a stink about this idiocy as with CNN web clips.

    For the first time since Barack Obama took office, a major broadcast network is refusing to grant the president’s request for primetime coverage.

    That’s the Fox entertainment network, not Fox News Channel. I guess you didn’t know there was such a thing.

    Comment by Gerald A (adb85a) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:40 pm

  22. BTW The Soloist was…not good. Produced by activist Jeff Skoll, he included every bleeding heart cliche, including a picture of Bush where his ears look all pointy like Beelzebub’s.

    I did get a good chuckle at the opening cheezy montage of “exciting” newspaper scenes, with the delivery truck in the pre-dawn tossing a paper to nearly every house on a block.

    Yeah, you wish, LOL!

    Comment by Patricia (2183bb) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:34 pm

  23. [...] Excellent reports on this subject can be found at NewsBusters and Patterico. [...]

    Pingback by American Glob » Blog Archive » Los Angeles Times to CIA: “How Dare You Protect Us From Attack.” (d3e984) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:22 pm

  24. SPQR—-regarding #19—but, but, but…that’s different.

    The man-crush continues.

    Reflexes like a pithed frog on partisan issues. Sheesh.

    Comment by Eric Blair (33cc23) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:30 pm

  25. From the LA Times:
    Tortured by the past
    There’s a disturbing link between Gitmo and the interrogation tactics I used in Vietnam
    By Frank Snepp

    “My most challenging interrogation involved Nguyen Van Tai, the highest-ranking enemy officer we captured.”

    “In his book, Tai asserts that his American interrogators never mistreated him. Indeed, I never laid a hand on him, never humiliated him, and when he asked for medical care, extra rations or clothing, I accommodated him.”

    “But I did become complicit in the psychological manipulation and torment of a prisoner”

    “My “success” in promoting a “dialogue” with Tai was based on his lingering fear that, without dialogue, he would be tossed back to the brutal South Vietnamese — an impression I encouraged. The isolation, the chilled air, the disorienting new routine were all things I imposed.

    My CIA colleagues and I used to rationalize our tactics, and some still insist that psychological intimidation, verbal threats and tight handcuffs are perfectly acceptable in terms of both morality and expediency. But I believe there is an organic connection between the tactics I applied against Tai and those approved by the Bush Justice Department. Controlled brutality is a slippery slope, and once you pass through the moral membrane that should contain our worst impulses, it becomes so very easy to rationalize another step, and yet another, in the wrong direction.”

    Comment by liontooth (c6d5a7) — 4/28/2009 @ 1:51 am

  26. KSM was captured almost a year after the L.A. bombing attempt was foiled. So you’re wrong.

    Comment by Craig Opp (391f4a) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:02 pm

  27. Comment by Craig Opp — 4/29/2009 @ 5:02 pm
    Could you refresh our (my) memory as to the dates for each of those occurrances:
    Plot foiled……
    KSM captured…..
    Thank you.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:13 pm

  28. Excuse me, but the the so called Tower plot was touted as being disruppted by President Bush A YEAR BEFORE THE MAN WAS CAPTURED AND WATERBOARDED.

    The plot couldn’t have worked anyway as we had already tighted restrictions at airports and on planes.

    You are doing nothing but continuing a right wing LIE, which if I remember correctly was first mentioned on the champion of lies and liars, Fox News.

    Comment by rick (598fea) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:22 pm

  29. Waterboarding happens to be illegal. The United States of America has put people in prison for it. Just ask that sheriff from Texas that went to the slammer for it. And, it was ruled to be torture by the court. We also executed Japanese military men who did it to U.S. troops.

    The only thing you get from waterboarding is a false confession. That is why they used it on WITCHES.

    Comment by rick (598fea) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:25 pm

  30. Ugh, rick, we executed Japanese military men for beheading American POW’s. The fact that they had waterboarded the POW before killing them had nothing to do with their conviction and execution for the beheadings.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:58 pm

  31. It seems as though they are only able to make their points by aggressively lying.

    Comment by JD (07b76c) — 4/30/2009 @ 3:51 am

  32. Waterboarding happens to be illegal. The United States of America has put people in prison for it. Just ask that sheriff from Texas that went to the slammer for it. And, it was ruled to be torture by the court. We also executed Japanese military men who did it to U.S. troops.

    That depends on where the waterboarding happened.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:58 am

  33. #29, rick wrote: “The only thing you get from waterboarding is a false confession. That is why they used it on WITCHES.”

    Look. She weighed the same as a duck, alright? Get over it.

    Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 4/30/2009 @ 3:43 pm

  34. Again, confession != (does not equal) information. Waterboarding was used for information, not confession.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/30/2009 @ 3:46 pm

  35. rick, #29, that’s special that you repeated all those long-ago debunked claims.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:02 pm

  36. Comment by SPQR — 4/30/2009 @ 4:02 pm

    Rick’s into recycling…He really had to dig down deep to the bottom of the green barrel for those gems.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (633e3f) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:27 pm

  37. John
    Hitchcock, you fool, waterboarding “information” is not even permissable in court, because intelligence agencies from both CIA and FBI have said it does not produce reliable “information”. Common sense will tell you that if one has nothing to say, and a desired result is pushed for, well, pain will produce whatever results you want. It’s come out now that Sadaam Hussein was tortured to try to link him to 9-11, of course, we all know how absurd that is now, even the lame 911 Commission has stated that, the supposed link to 9-11-01 with Sadaam-totally discredited. It only undermined efforts to have Iraqis regard US presence with good will. Now, of course, lots more hate us and want to join the insurgency. Why would torture bring any sort of respect, and good wishes to the US, who is supposed to be bringing democratic principles? What a sad joke on the poor Iraqis. MOST of those detained, as has been said by soldiers, are innocent. If you doubt me, google up “Winter Soldiers”, and hear their statements, instead of taking my word for it.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:28 pm

  38. Note to blubonnet…
    The CIA is not a law enforcement agency, and has no function in the criminal justice system.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (633e3f) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:31 pm

  39. Blu, who said anything about court, other than you and your leftist friends? I have no need for terrorists to go to court. That is not what the information is used for. It is used to keep Americans alive.

    Like I said to you over on CSPT, don’t take terrorists to court, KILL them.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:31 pm

  40. How do you know they are terrorists? You don’t. The soldoers don’t. The soldiers have sais that. So, just kill anyone that MIGHT be. That is pretty wide open and too many people that should not get killed, get killed. THAT is what has happened. Simple “explanations” for complex problems. No, you don’t have the answers.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:47 pm

  41. Oh, but I do. Little blue men from deep beneath the white house ran over to NYC and stuck roman candles in the twin towers after those leer jets accidentally bumped into them so the roman candles would knock down the twin towers.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:50 pm

  42. I’m talking about the rights of human beings. If they cannot be proven as terrorists, you want to just kill them anyway? That is as barbaric as the dark ages. It may sound really tough, but it is tragic, inhumane, and murderous. Do you respect the United States as being an honorable country, who respects the rights of human beings, or not? If it was you or yours that were the unlucky ones in Iraq, you’d see it differently, but you apparently don’t regard these mostly innocent people as real human beings. Why not?

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:51 pm

  43. That condition must be quite painful, you really need to ask your physician to up your meds.
    It would be less painful for the rest of us if you were comatose.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (633e3f) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:52 pm

  44. You are an ass, if you disregard science which shows the 911 Commssion to be a sham. Most all of NY City knows it now. Most of the US knows it now, that the 911 Commission was a ridiculous cover up. BUT, John Hitchcock, you are attempting to discredit me, by bringing up that, because most people here can’t even think beyond the common, WON’T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. YOU INCLUDED, ARE TOO FRIGHTENED. They wouldn’t dare look at the evidence which discounts the obvious sham of the 911 Commission. Hell, the editor of a firefighter magazine even stated, “The 911 Commission was a totoal farce”. BUT, YOU, JOHN HITCHCOCK ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 4:57 pm

  45. “Teehee, giggle-giggle”, jokes are plentiful, when actual discussion points are absent.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:00 pm

  46. I see the lefty loons are out in force today.

    Comment by Dave Surls (a3aa65) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:04 pm

  47. Nah, blu is so loony even the lefty loons tell her to take her truther stuff elsewhere.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:06 pm

  48. True that even the Left are afrad of facts that are displeasing. Did you know, or do you care, that the scientists, of which there are many, of the ever growing 911 Truth, have recently gotten an article published in a physics journal. I could give you a link if you would have the guts to read it, but you’re all wusses. There has been nano thermite found in large quantities at GroundZero. But, you all already are the great minds of the Universe, so it’s hopeless to have a rational discussion. You’re afflicted with the condition of “already knowing everything”. It is a learning disorder leaving many deaf, dumb and blind, but blissfully ignorant!

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:21 pm

  49. blubonnet, do you think you could lay out for me the evidence for what really happened on 9/11/01 in New York City. I would really appreciate this info.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:21 pm

  50. Nonsense. I support whatever it takes to protect the lives of innocents. If it is waterboarding that will do it, so be it. I would support pulling out their finger nails one by one if that is gonna get it done. Waterboarding is torture. So what? Are we going to give those terrorists a hug and ice tea? Obama better watch how he handles this issue. I see this coming back to bite him in the ass sometime down the road.

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:22 pm

  51. Peer reviewed, by the way.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:24 pm

  52. of the ever growing 911 Truth

    The only reason it’s growing is there is a sucker born every minute.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:28 pm


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:30 pm


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:32 pm


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:33 pm

  56. I’ll take a 100 blubonnets over one goatmolester2008, any day. And not just because I’m looking forward to photographic evidence of this claim by her.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:34 pm


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:36 pm


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:39 pm

  59. No, no, no. Not links to people “just asking questions.” Just tell me, in your own words, what happened that day.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:40 pm

  60. Sleazebags Run Patriots Question 9-11.

    According to them, a guy who got killed on 9/11 questions 9/11!

    Is he from Chicago?

    Comment by Karl (3bf5f8) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:48 pm

  61. I love 911 Truthers almost as much as I love Kennedy Conspiracy buffs.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/30/2009 @ 5:56 pm

  62. Hey Karl, is your last name Rove? It might as well be. You are a BSer. There truly are efforts to kill the growth, discredit it. It can’t happen, because evidence is plentiful, when enough folks had the guts, honest objectivity, and intellectual curiosity to see it, yes, there will be some shock and awe within, even the skeptics. The evidence is irrefutable.

    Carlitos, if you want to start researching, a good place to start would be:

    I suggest checking out the many documentary videos on the bottom of that screen.

    Often times though, that link, when it is posted will make the post disappear. I hope this one works. I’ve taken some time to try and explain it. Sometimes I get banned also. Not too many people want this kind of news, and that is understandable.

    I can’t claim to know what happened. I do know that the official story, by hundreds of scientists, structural engineers, government officials, military intelligence people, and more,and you can even see for yourself, that there were numerous explosives that occurred, AND the numerous professionals of the relevant field, have concluded that the official story defies physics. There’s dozens of video footage showing what has been found, yet the attempts to squelch the credibility, which is now enormous, has failed. The 911 Truth movement just keeps growing, because when folks take an honest look, there are so many many things that don’t make sense. For example, and just for a start, ask yourself, how many times prior to 911 NORAD worked perfectly. But on 9-11-01, it failed, not just once, but after the original plane crashing into the towers, NORAD continued to fail. Just the tip of the iceberg, my friend.

    There was molten metal weeks past 9-11-01 declared at Groundzero, by numerous firefighters, and first responders. Jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to melt metal. an explosives material has been found in mass at Ground Zero. Thermite can accomplish that, which is an explosives material, used by the military.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:09 pm

  63. Incidentally, when I’d gone to the site “screwloosechange” and debated with them, it was just mostly insulting that they would do, but once I asked one of them, if they were getting paid by someone to operate the site, and he actually admitted it.

    Yeah, attempts are being made to squelch the 911 TRuth Movement.

    I don’t want to have to think the unthinkable either, but I’m not going to obligingly ignore facts.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:14 pm

  64. Jet fuel can burn hot enough to turn metal into ash. Just show us your endowments, blu.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:14 pm

  65. There was molten metal on the site, long after 9-11-01. Many first responders will attest to that, and have.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:17 pm

  66. The first time fire ever melted steel…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:17 pm

  67. And, nk, jet fuel burns in a metal vehicle, called an airplane.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:18 pm

  68. Former CIA agent and author Robert Baer is listed on Patriots Questions 9/11. Falsely.

    Comment by Karl (3bf5f8) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:20 pm

  69. Look, blu, I was not the best student in Mr. Kourash’s Chemistry II class, but I learned enough to know that kerosene has something like a gazillion times the energy of acetylene.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:22 pm

  70. Err, you know, so does the gasoline in my car, which is a lot more explosive than dynamite, but there is such a thing as controlled burning and uncontrolled burning.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:24 pm

  71. bluballs= rosie o’donnell. As the X-Files said, “The troof will set you free” or was it “Trust no one but Obama”?

    Da Fire don’t melt dat steel..that’s why it is impossible to forge steel from iron in foundries.

    Funny I seem to recall watching the TV live when the 2nd plane hit the Twin Towers. And I guess the rigorous study Popular Mechanics did of the whole affair is a conspiracy also. But of course all those images are strictly verboten. We need to worry about important things like the media’s desire to fellate Obama or libtard pity for waterboarded terrorists.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:37 pm

  72. oink oink!

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:38 pm

  73. Comment by aoibhneas — 4/30/2009 @ 6:37 pm
    You sound so much like madmaxx33 or something like that. Are you maddmax333?

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:44 pm

  74. the media’s desire to fellate Obama

    Little do they know that the Klingon bit it off and swallowed it a long time ago.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:46 pm

  75. This was the interview with Thom Hartmann on the radio, with Robert Baer.
    Audio Interview Thom Hartmann Show 6/9/06:

    Thom Hartmann: Are you of the opinion there was an aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the U.S. government?

    Robert Baer: There is that possibility, the evidence points at it.

    Thom Hartmann: And why is it not being investigated?

    Robert Baer: Why isn’t the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn’t anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no — any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder. http://www.911blog.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:48 pm

  76. Leave it lie, aoibhneas. As long as Goatmolester2008 comments here, the goats get a break.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:49 pm

  77. Those with nothing credible to counter the argument make jokes. It never fails. Some people laugh eratically when they are nervous too.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:50 pm

  78. Are you named after the Japanese condom made by Osaka Industries, the one with a high failure rate? I can picture you now, dressed as a sperm in a Woodie Allen movie. Forty five degrees and rising…prepare to ejaculate!

    I’m told both Olberdouche and Chrissie I squat to pee Matthews both masturbate to bare chested photos of Obama riding his bike in his nerdy shorts impersonating Urkel.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:50 pm

  79. Robert Baer was a CIA member.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:52 pm

  80. But many other former CIA have spoken up as well.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:53 pm

  81. Comment by aoibhneas — 4/30/2009 @ 6:50 pm
    There is no doubt about it. You are maddmax33!

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 4/30/2009 @ 6:58 pm

  82. Baer, December 2007:

    For the record, I don’t believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn’t all that good at it, and certainly couldn’t carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with.

    Comment by Karl (3bf5f8) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:00 pm

  83. Thank you for bringing that here. Interesting that you only brought one piece of the article. He said he didin’t believe it was brought down by “our own explosives”. He did not say no explosives were found. That is obvious, that explosives were used. Major denial is necessary to bypass that which is obvious…EXPLOSIVES are difinitely evident. There has actually been nano-thermite found.

    I suppose you brought that piece of the article here, because you’d prefer all here didn’t read the whole article.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:17 pm

  84. I think blubonnet knows too much just to be an innocent observer.

    Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:20 pm

  85. Those with nothing credible to counter the argument make jokes

    I make jokes at flat-earthers, those who believe the moon landings were faked, and other people like that.

    I remember trying to engage you, blubonnet, several months ago on the 911 subject. You wouldn’t listen to reason. You didn’t understand the physics. You simply dismissed my many arguments and presented nothing in your own words to counter them.

    Why on earth do you expect me to go through that again. All you are worthy of is my laughter.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:20 pm

  86. So, I guess the idea is that when confronted with the fact that your group is counting people like Baer when he clearly does not believe 9/11 is an inside job, you’ll just jump to some other debunked garbage, because you can’t deal with the basic dishonesty of the group. A shame, really.

    Molten metal, Nano-thermites debunked.

    Peer-reviewed journal = vanity press in Pakistan.

    Comment by Karl (3bf5f8) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:30 pm

  87. Can we now get back on topic? What’s the topic? Anyone know?

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:34 pm

  88. blubonnet:

    I can’t claim to know what happened.

    That is somewhat less than convincing. Thanks for the link, but I have no interest in “researching” something that happened in front of my eyes. This is the problem with conspiracy theories – they keep pointing at little things that, isolated, make you say “yeah, that sounds weird.” Then, when you dig waaaaay into it and find out that one small thing was debunked and silly, they wave some other little thing and say “look over here, here is another thing.” I don’t have time to waste on that sort of insanity. If you do, good for you. But don’t be surprised when no one believes that a massive conspiracy requiring impossible physics, thousands of silent, compliant co-conspirators, and thousands of dead Americans, happened in New York, and the only ones who know the “truth” are a bunch of nutters on the internet.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:38 pm

  89. There was molten metal on the site, long after 9-11-01. Many first responders will attest to that, and have.

    blubonnet, did you know that there’s molten metal at the center of the earth? Do you know how it stays molten? Once you understand that, you will begin to understand how metal at ground zero could stay molten long after 9/11

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:41 pm

  90. Blu or blubonnet used to post at Liberal Avenger. She seems to be a bit crazier now.

    Comment by Fritz (56ebb6) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:45 pm

  91. As Bill Whittle put it:

    To try to convince people of missile attacks and rigged explosives and mystery jets is nothing more than an intentional assault on reason and common sense, one that damns the innocent and protects those mass murderers with our blood on their hands.

    It’s an obscenity. It’s a filthy, God-damned, criminal obscenity. Nothing less.

    “Just asking questions” isn’t just asking questions. It’s obscene.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:47 pm

  92. Great article: The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories by Edward Feser

    Comment by Fritz (56ebb6) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:51 pm

  93. Thanks for the reminder of that, Fritz. I have unpleasant memories of those people. Besides being a dishonest, lying prick himself, he had some really sick counterparts.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 7:54 pm

  94. P these video clips:

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:08 pm

  95. ooops this is it:

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  96. blubonnet, I really just wanted your theory. If you don’t have one, that’s fine. Just speaking for myself, I won’t be clicking on any of your links, for the reasons stated above.

    FYI, truth doesn’t “grow” or evolve.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:14 pm

  97. Like I said, Carlitos, there are numerous attempts to discredit the 911 Truth movement. However the evidence is on the side of the 911 Truth movement. WE have documentary video footage of events, which you don’t see on the ones trying to debunk us. There are dozens of books with large bibliographies, detailing the numerous credible sources. You seem honest enough, and objective, you can face this question without going ballistic….Why are you bypassing the facts? Is it really because it is not a popular position to take?

    FYI, Carlito, it’s those that are recognizing the truth, our numbers keep growing, evolving.

    There will be a new investigation, because at least 2/3 of New York City does NOT believe the government story. Enough signatures now will make for a new investigation, because it will be on the ballot in November, in New York, and like I said, most New Yorkers see things my way. Enough scientists, architects, and demolitions experts, and structural engineers and government officials will make things clear then.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:37 pm

  98. I’m not bypassing the “facts.” You can’t answer the question “what happened on 9/11/01 in lower Manhattan.” Why is that? If it makes it easier for you, be really vague.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:43 pm

  99. I am not able to say for sure who or why. Either are the experts. The only facts we know of, and there’s about 50 of them, that show that the official government story is a lie. I respect you for having the guts to even consider this. Most won’t even come near it. Jokes usually result. While the government story for example says that the weakening steel is what made the towers collapse, which is impossible, because it was a cement building, and it was pulverized. The fellow who was the designer of the World Trade Centers was actually killed in the destruction that occured that day. However, there was a video of him speaking prior to then, when he was discussing the way they were made. This si mind boggling. Below is a series of short clips of him explaining the strength of the towers.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:50 pm

  100. “There will be a new investigation, because at least 2/3 of New York City does NOT believe the government story.”

    blubonnet – Do you have a citation for that 2/3 figure?

    You are really bringing teh funny tonight!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:57 pm

  101. OK, you can’t say “for sure.” But surely you must have a theory about what happened that day. Not questions, but an actual affirmative – “here is what I think happened.

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:57 pm

  102. “our numbers keep growing, evolving”

    Mutating would be a better word choice than evolving I think.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:59 pm

  103. daleyrocks,

    “Hallucinating” would be an even better description.

    Comment by Karl (3bf5f8) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:02 pm

  104. Nobody that challenges me offers any video footage. We on the 911 Truth side do. Plenty of it, if you have to guts to look.

    They do have a computer cartoon version though of how it was supposed to have happened. We have the ACTUAL video footage.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:03 pm

  105. blubonnet, I don’t need any additional video footage. I watched it on TV. I really want to know what you think happened that day. Let me give an example:

    In November, 1963, a disaffected ex-Marine shot and killed President Kennedy.

    See – I’m not asking questions. Just positing a theory. What’s yours?

    Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:09 pm

  106. blubonnet – If you say the official version is wrong, what is the correct version?

    I agree with carlitos. It’s silly just to say something is wrong if you don’t have an alternative explanation unless you’re just trying to make some money from it like some of the truthers.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:29 pm

  107. Carlito, it has been a fact through history that governments, when wanting to start wars, do what is called a “false flag operation”. Hitler did it. The Reichstag fire was one. I don’t know that our government did it this time, but, there were definitely explosives going off as the multitude of structural engineers and demolitons experts and many others have noted.

    There was word from various governments around the world. The intelligence agencies within this country tried to follow up on it, as the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing was delivered to George W. Bush in Crawford Texas while he was on vacation. He stayed on vacation then. Numerous intelligence agents wanted to pursue the leads recieved from around the world, but the honchos in the agencies told them NOT to. (On the Patriots site, their statements can be found, including the past Republican DIRECTOR of the FBI, Louis Freeh, all of whom who are puzzled by the agencies insistence that they NOT follow through.

    You can find on the internet, a document called OPERATION NORTHWOODS, which was a letter to President Kennedy suggesting attacking one of our own vessels, to blame on Cuba, to get the public to rally around in hopes of attacking Cuba. Kennedy refused the Pentagon’s request.

    I know that GWB and his gang long wanted to invade Iraq long before his presidency. I personally believe that they knew it was going to happen, because the warnings were explicit, the warnings even saying that the were towers in New York City were a target. So, to add to the drama, and I don’t know this for sure, but some believe that the explosions, pulverizing the buildings, (and even projecting pieces of metal so strongly outward, that they lodged into surrounding buildings), this added up the death toll, more drama, increased the outrage, and assured those wanting to start the war, and EZ “yes” from the public.

    The big question of course, is “how could the towers be placed with explosives? WEll, it just so happens that the towers were closed down, while usually always open, and believe it or not a company who does security work, that get this…happened to be a relative of GWB’s, I think it was a brother of his. That would be the only time that they could be planted. I would rather you saw the documentaries, of which there are many though. Multiple points are made more articulately than I can make them, along with the video documentation, and much more interesting than I am. My post #62 has the link which has the multiple documentaries on the bottom of that screen. There are also on that site, people with enormous credibility, like the former head of NASA, for example.

    I expect that there will be here more jokes and attempts to discredit me now, here. Of course the lame sites trying to discredit the masses of information that have accumulated from many scientists and other courageous and relevant professionals too, will be attacked.

    I applaude you Carlitos. Remember what Einstein said: “Great spirits will always encounter violent oppositon from mediocre minds.”

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:34 pm

  108. blubonnet,

    I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with a skeptic. I have no inclination at all to dispute your claims about Northwoods or Bush on vacation or explosives being placed in the towers, for the reasons I stated above.

    I really do wish you would make an affirmative case though. An example:

    I believe that terrorists affiliated with Osama Bin Laden hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center towers I and II, and that the stress caused by the impact, coupled with the effects of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel, caused the towers to fall. I believe that those same terrorists flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, and that the passengers on United flight 93 prevented another strike by rushing the cockpit of that hijacked airplane, causing that flight to crash into a field, probably intentionally when the hijackers realized what was happening.

    What is your theory of the events of 9/11/01. I really want to know.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:46 pm

  109. Jeez, carlitos, I just wonder why blubonnet doesn’t live in the world of 2009 instead of the world of 2006.

    I mean, we now have a pandemic swine flu. President Obama had to be involved, according to that logic.

    Comment by Ag80 (b19e67) — 4/30/2009 @ 9:56 pm

  110. Here are, but a few of the warnings of scholars and forefathers regarding the dangers of corporate power, specifically the military industrial complex.

    ALBERT EINSTEIN: “Under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control directly or indirectly, the main source of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed, in most cases for the individual ciztizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

    ALEX DE TOCQUEVILLE: “All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ouught to know that war is the surest and shortest way to accomplish it.”

    JAMES MADISON: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    FORMER CIA DIRECTOR WILLIAM COLBY: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns any everyone of any signicance in the major media.”

    JOHN STOCKWELL, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL AND AUTHOR: “It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms.”

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureacracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who quetion its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army, in front of me, and the financial institution at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthronedm, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign byworking upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of the few, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at thes moment, more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions prove groundless.”

    DWIGHT EISENHOWER: “In the counsels of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

    GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER (twice awarded the Congressional medal of Honor): “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses of lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something, that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small “‘inside’ group know what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few, people make huge fortunes.”

    This is no honorable man, but he speaks truth here-HERMAN GOERING: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for ‘lack of patriotism’ and ‘exposing the country to danger’. ”

    Now, I dare you to google up: the Carlyle Group.

    Also google up: George W Bush family history

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:07 pm

  111. blubonnet – Why do you keep dodging carlitos’ question?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:13 pm

  112. blubonnet said:

    the military industrial complex.

    Wow. I feel like I’m 10 again.

    And, I bet, my long dead grandfather does, too.

    Read. Off line. It doesn’t hurt.

    Comment by Ag80 (b19e67) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:16 pm

  113. blubonnet, you will find that I am a very patient and persistent person. I understand that you can post many links to quotes and skeptics regarding the events of September 11, 2001, but I can find those easily through my own research. As I have repeatedly stated above, I find “asking questions” to be counter-productive and will not participate. I am looking for an affirmative theory, and nothing else.

    If you are choosing to avoid the question I am asking, could you at least say why you refuse to answer? Surely someone who has the time to research the topic in such detail has formulated a theory about what actually happened that day. Please, share your theory with me. I want to know.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:17 pm

  114. Carlito, I appreciate and respect your curiosity (a sign of intellect), but, I wish I knew exactly what happened as well. None of us in the 911 Truth movement can say with certainty we know what happened. We are asking for a real and independent investigation. We do know, however that there are lies from the government and operations to squelch the ever burgeoning growth of the movement. The cover-up is an obvious fact. Why? What have they to cover up. Some say Isreal is responsible to start a war against Iraq. Some say it’s the Bilderbergers. Some say it was the Bush family. We don’t know. We only know that the facts that are contrary to the official story are more than evident. If you google up 911 truth you will find scores and scores of sites, and it is an international movement now, Members of governments internationally have joined us as well. Again, thank you for your interest. Start wandering through the site, which I posted the link for on this commentary stream #62. You’ve got strength of character being honest with yourself, and maintaining your objectivity, Sir. Bye for now.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:19 pm

  115. carlitos – Thank you for keeping hope alive.

    I know the American people will find out the truth some day.

    You are a Great American!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:23 pm

  116. blubonnet:

    Life is short. Please find peace with yourself. There’s so much more in this world than this.

    Comment by Ag80 (b19e67) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:28 pm

  117. Nobody that challenges me offers any video footage.

    I don’t need to offer video footage. I understand physics, and I have read many pages of material from the so-called 911 truthers.

    I’ll be happy to tell you exactly why the towers fell, and why there were no explosives used.

    But you have to listen. And you have to offer your own arguments against mine. Not just some link from somewhere. Anyone can post a link, but putting it into your own words shows you really understand the material.

    But I don’t think you really do understand it. I’ve seen you dodge carlitos’s questions again and again. I’ve seen that you cannot offer your own theory for what really happened. And I’ve seen you repeatedly use inuendo instead of argument.

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:30 pm

  118. blubonnet, thank you for your kind words. As I stated above, you will find that I am a person of patience. I have given you my reasons for not googling “911 truth” and I really do not have any time for the movement. I am not willing to do research on this subject, again, for the reasons stated above.

    What leaves me, quite frankly, gobsmacked is this:

    You have spent hours, just today, in posting links to folks who question the official story about 9/11/01. Given this pattern of activity, it seems likely that you have spent a great deal of time thinking about these events over the past several years. You have stated that you don’t now, with certainty, what happened on 9/11/01. Yet, when I ask you directly, you don’t have any theory at all as to what happened that day.

    Put yourself in my place. I am on the internet, and someone tells me “X” didn’t happen. I saw “X” happen live on television. When I ask, “what did happen if not X” you say “there are experts that question X.” I am not asking for more questions, merely your theory as to what happened on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001.

    Respectfully, this should not be a hard question.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:32 pm

  119. now = “know”

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:36 pm

  120. Post #107 is my theory on what happened.

    I do know that Bush, Cheney and their friends stood to gain ungodly amounts of money by this war. They did too. The abuses of the US treasury by Halliburton is mind boggling. There are documentaries on that alone (Iraq for Sale, you should watch it). Bottom line, as unthinkable as it is, war is a racket. Here is another quotation from the venerable historical icon,

    THOMAS PAINE: “That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it thier study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between antions, it becomes the more unpardonable.” from his book, circa 1792, The Rights of Man

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 10:58 pm

  121. And yes, I am quite concerned that the masses bought into this, and it will pass. I am greatly bothered by it, and have followed the progress, watched numerous documentaries, and considered of course the possibility of the Truth movement being dishonest, but the evidence keeps me standing on the side of the 911 Truth movement. It’s irrefutable to me now.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 4/30/2009 @ 11:02 pm

  122. blubonnet, I once again have to thank you for your civility. However, it seems obvious that you are avoiding my question, and I would like to know why. You may easily post quotes and links that question the events of September 11th, 2001. These links and quotes do not interest me.

    What does interest me is your theory as to what happened on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001. I know that you have thought about this; it just seems silly to pretend otherwise.

    Post #107 does not contain any theory as to what happened that morning. You refer to a ‘false flag operation’ but you never explain what happened. Come on, you are so adamant about this topic, yet you expect me to believe that you have no theory at all as to what happened that day? Really?

    Please tell us, in your best estimation, based on the information that you have seen, what happened in lower Manhattan on Tuesday, September 11, 2001?

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 4/30/2009 @ 11:10 pm

  123. After going through the last five hours of comments, all I can think is: Why?

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (633e3f) — 4/30/2009 @ 11:26 pm

  124. I, as others believe, although on this matter there isn’t proof, but more evidence pointing in the direction of Bush, but I believe that Bush and gang, and I even think this might seem outrageous, but I can’t find another explanation, and believe me, I’d like to find a different explanation with factual backing, but I have to conclude, that there were warnings ahead of time, and they not only let it happen, they used the opportunity to take us to war, and prior to that, if not they, someboddy, obviously set up the buildings for detonation. The effect of such a devastating destruction, and loss of lives, only left a state of shock and emotional imprint on the public, even the world. Even I was up for going to war. It suspended rational thought. Revenge was in the air. Most of the public was all for it. However, as the supposed WMDs didn’t show up, and it was apparent that we were duped into the war, and even the pathetic 911 stated that 911 Commissionhad NOTHING to do with Iraq, and torture became policy, and our rights started diminishing, and surveillance started happening, and it was clear with ample evidence that our elections were stolen, and I started studying the Bush family, and it actual banking support for Hitler, and our country started resembling that, I realized that our country had been taken by criminals. I know it seem outrageous, but George W Bush’s grandfather, and please don’t take my word for it, look it up, scrutinize, George W. Bush’s grandfather worked for the Nazis. I could find links, but the fact is, I’m tired of finding links. The information is plentiful, showing it is true. There has been an effort to take over our country.

    When Bush stood on the rubble at Groundzero, I suspected something mischievious in him, but dismissed the thought, because, afterall, what a terrible thought. But more and more, it became apparent that this Bush, was not only going against everything our country has ever stood for in democratic principles, he was deceptive in all he said. More and more kept emerging. I scrutinized. It was just too apparent to overlook. What was really heartbreaking was realizing that we bombed the hell out of a civillian population killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. then, I found out there was ample evidence, and the weapons inspectors even said, that no substantial evidence was found. Only the last residual biological weapons that our own country sold them a decade prior, with Rumsfield shaking hands (famous photo on internet you could find). That was the gas, that we sold him in which he (Sadaam hussein) gassed the Kurds with. We didn’t care, until the issue of him abandoning the dollar for euros. (I don’t understand all of that). Of course, he has huge amounts of oil in his country. Bush family, besides being in the defense industry, is in the oil business as well. More and more, it is apparent, that the multiple warnings of our forefathers (see posts of mine #110 and #111) were taking place.

    Then, after studying more, I found out that this document, funded by defense industry ultimatley, supporting think tanks, formed what is known as PNAC, otherwise known as Project for the New American Century (you can find it on net) which in it stated specifically, to sell the war to the American people we need a “new Pearl Harbor”. And, what do you know, along it came.

    More study revealed, that the signatories of that document, many of them were followers of the political philosophy of Leo Strauss (look him up too-mind blowing guy-genuinely evil) whose whole political outlook, is how to gain absolute power in government. Deception is to be used whenever necessary, all for the acquisition of absolute power.

    Also, as I continued to look for credible sources to substantiate these things, I found many testimonies from former CIA of the “less than honorable” activities of the US around the globe, which was more about obtaining resources than anything else.

    Just research it yourself Carlito. BE discerning, but be honest with yourself and by all means, maintain objectivity. I’ve given you some places to start in some of my posts. I’ve got to go to bed. It has been satisfying to discuss this with you. I hope to share more conversations with you in the future.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:00 am

  125. uh-oh, I made a small mistake above in saying that my post was #110 and #111. It was 110, in which I was referring. #111 was someone else.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:07 am

  126. I found out there was ample evidence, and the weapons inspectors even said, that no substantial evidence was found….That was the gas, that we sold him in which he (Sadaam hussein) gassed the Kurds with. We didn’t care, until the issue of him abandoning the dollar for euros. (I don’t understand all of that)

    Reading your comment, I understand your lack of understanding.

    Comment by Apogee (e2dc9b) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:43 am

  127. Naturally, I get the credit for sending Blu your way! :) She’s been one of my regulars for a long time.

    Comment by The blogger Dana (3e4784) — 5/1/2009 @ 5:20 am

  128. blubonnet, as I indicated, I want to understand your position as to what happened on September 11, 2001. The only claim you made in your 1:00am post was that Bush and his gang “let it happen” in order to take us to war. Let what happen, exactly? You must believe me, I understand and have heard the claims about Bush’s family and the rush to war in Iraq, Kurds, Dollar vs. Euro, Leo Strauss and the PNAC, etc. I understand all that. I am not going to do any more research, for the reasons stated above, in order to “ask questions.” What I am looking for is a positive claim, not questions with the official story.

    What happened on Tuesday morning, September, 11, 2001? I have given you my theory. What is yours?

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 6:16 am

  129. “Reading your comment, I understand your lack of understanding.”

    Insane people don’t usually get it right. And, ol’ blubonnet is about as crazy as it gets.

    Comment by Dave Surls (a954f8) — 5/1/2009 @ 6:34 am

  130. The information is plentiful, showing it is true plentiful.

    FIFY, blu.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/1/2009 @ 7:00 am

  131. #127 The blogger Dana:

    Naturally, I get the credit for sending Blu your way!


    I am just



    Comment by EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/1/2009 @ 7:23 am

  132. Great spirits will always encounter violent oppositon from mediocre minds.
    Well said.

    Comment by The Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 5/1/2009 @ 7:31 am

  133. CRAZY is assuming you know something, when you haven’t looked at the evidence. Also, insanity takes place when one cannot, will not, frantically resists, reality which is right in front of you. Who here had the guts to look at the links? Or did you just get angry instead?

    Emperor7, Those were Einstein’s words above.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:43 am

  134. blubonnet, however here in your case, with #124 and the rest of your comments, just insanity is evident. You have no evidence. All of the intentional demolition, and LIHOP “evidence” is made up. All of it.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:50 am

  135. Carlitos, I would be a fool to assume I understood everything. I can only observe and state the obvious. Many can’t even do that (observe the obvious).

    It is disapointing that you are unwilling to look further at the links. I’ve told you what my theory is post #124 is my explanation. Why don’t you realize what there is to realize on your own?

    Since we are celebrating Einstein’s wisdom, this is another one of his bright, wise words: “Whoever undertakes to set himself as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.”

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:57 am

  136. SPQR, you got it all figured out, huh? What have you looked at? Or you are one that thinks the government is always honest?

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:59 am

  137. blu,

    Whatever you do, do not attempt to ally yourself with Emperor7 formerly known as goatmolester2008. She is nothing like you. I think you are wrong about 9/11, but that’s fine, you argue civilly with passionate intensity. She is what you wipe off the bottom of your shoe when people do not clean up after their dogs.

    Comment by nk (edb3d7) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:03 am

  138. No, blubonnet, I never believe that government is honest. For it is like any other human institution. However, all of the claims of the 911 Truthers have been debunked and shown as utter fantasies. No one, regardless of how “honest”, could rig the WTC buildings for demolition. There is literally no evidence of prior knowledge of the Bush administration.

    Its all a fantasy, a very disturbing fantasy that illustrates the need of those who hold it to feel more important for being in possession of “secret/special” knowledge.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:05 am

  139. No, you are wrong. Attempts have been made to debunk them. Those that want to believe the government will. Those that see the anomolies of the government story, and look at evidence know otherwise. Have you seen the collapse of World Trade Center 7? It wasn’t hit by a plane, and yet it obviously was imploded. Then, there is video of the leasee (who made multiple billions from the insurance company) Silverstein, saying point blank, to “Pull it” regarding WTC7, which is a detonation term. He later tried to claim he was saying “Pull everyone out of the building”. It was 5:20 pm and all had long been evacuated out of the building. If you click onto the link I left (#99), in minutes, you will see his statement. Why don’t you listen to what multiple firefighters who were there had to say?

    Or is it too frightening?

    Tip of the iceberg, I’m tellin ya. If you give me a question, I canrespond to it, and give you a link proving my point. But, I have to leave right now, to work, and can only re-engage in this discussion later.

    The closing of the towers prior to 9-11-01, weeks before it happened, for “security” purposes”. That was actually a company that had GWB’s relative running it. Look it up.

    Anyone that debates, should have to look at both perspectives, and see what evidence there is to substantiate the point. Otherwise, it’s just huffing and puffing. Show some integrity, look at both sides, evidence-wise.


    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:24 am

  140. Listen to hundreds of architects and structural engineers. Watch the collapse of WTC7. That will take only a few minutes of your time. Then, scrutinize, see if there is actual validity there. But, for God’s sake, be objective and honest with yourself.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:31 am

  141. 99- I am shocked to learn that the Twin Towers were made of cement. And here I thought it was bad enough that Chinese were dying in building collapses exacerbated by use of poor steel rebar. The people who allowed the construction of those vast Twin Towers sans any steel at all should be arrested and made to give up their co-conspirators. Of course coercive treatment must not be allowed though. No wonder Rosie was irate and insisted fire doesn’t melt steel- there was no steel to begin with and we all know that concrete is impervious to fire also and will never burn at all. Of course here in S. Fla. those pesky Formosan termites can eat through it. How do we know termites were not the cause of the collapse? I thought I saw a plane hit a tower in real time and now it may just be that fate only timed it so that the termite destruction coincided with an accidental airplane crash. Allahu Akhbar!

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:38 am

  142. blubonnet, your failure to even understand the basics of the construction of the WTC towers leads me to simply ridicule your nonsense.

    Comment by SPQR (72771e) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:55 am

  143. Carlitos, I would be a fool to assume I understood everything. I can only observe and state the obvious. Many can’t even do that (observe the obvious).

    It is disapointing that you are unwilling to look further at the links. I’ve told you what my theory is post #124 is my explanation. Why don’t you realize what there is to realize on your own?

    blubonnet, I don’t expect that you know “everything” anymore than I do. However, I have stated here, in this thread, my theory as to what happened.

    Your post 124 casts a lot of suspicion on the President and his gang, who you say “let it happen.” That is my problem with your “truth” movement as it stands. It picks away at little nits here and there, occasionally bending a fact or two, but it never states an affirmative theory. It points “over here” and “over there” but it won’t assert a plausible theory for what happened that day. I can do it in a couple of sentences, and indeed have done so here.

    What do you think happened on September 11? You spend hours thinking about this stuff, you have the links at hand, you have read a lot about what didn’t happened. What happened, in your best estimation? 4 planes, 2 towers, a couple of dozen arab gents, the Pentagon, a field in PA, and 3,000 American lives were affected.

    What is your most plausible theory? Please, just short and to the point.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:05 pm

  144. nk wrote:

    She is what you wipe off the bottom of your shoe when people do not clean up after their dogs.

    Me, I just learned to step around that stuff.

    Comment by The sanitary Dana (3e4784) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:19 pm

  145. Sorry, I re-read blubonnet’s post and did find one affirmative claim:

    “somebody, obviously set up the buildings for detonation”

    Ok, so please fill in some of the blanks for me. If Bush & gang “let” someone blow up the World Trade Center towers 1 & 2, what is your best guess about who did it, how they did it, and how can you explain the rest of the things that happened that day.

    A few sentences. Best guess. That’s all. Who were the bad guys, what did they do. Again, 4 flights, lots of people, Pentagon, field in PA, etc.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:34 pm

  146. You are still a pig, nk. Tell me, is “nk” a derivative of “Oink?” Watch out folks. We ve got swine on this blog!

    Comment by The Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:39 pm

  147. Lovey, if you doubled your intellectual capacity, you’d have the same intellectual capacity you have now.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:40 pm

  148. John Hitchcock,

    Comment by The mathematically astute Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (5de461) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:51 pm

  149. Comment by John Hitchcock — 5/1/2009 @ 12:40 pm
    Another member of the shrinking resistance. Hello John.

    Comment by The Emperor7 (0c8c2c) — 5/1/2009 @ 12:56 pm


    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:01 pm

  151. JH…
    He Shoots!
    He Scores!

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (f774a9) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:10 pm

  152. Have you seen the collapse of World Trade Center 7? It wasn’t hit by a plane, and yet it obviously was imploded.

    No, it wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was hit by debris falling from WTC 1 and 2. And, no, it was not obviously imploded. Didn’t you see the pictures of the still-standing building with a huge chunk of it taken out by falling debris?

    Then, there is video of the leasee (who made multiple billions from the insurance company)

    This is an absurd claim. A building owner/lessee/whatever makes much more money from an occupied building than it would from casualty insurance.

    Silverstein, saying point blank, to “Pull it” regarding WTC7, which is a detonation term.

    The demolition term you quote would not have been known by Silverstein. It also doesn’t refer to detonation; rather, to “pull” a building involves chains and acutally pulling a building over. This isn’t something done to a 40-story building, it’s done to buildings less than 5 stories. So, even if it is a demolition term, Silverstein could not possibly have been using it that way in the context of the time.

    He later tried to claim he was saying “Pull everyone out of the building”. It was 5:20 pm and all had long been evacuated out of the building

    This is a deliberate lie. He wasn’t talking about getting the occupants out of the building, he was talking about getting the fire crew out of the building. It was a lost cause, the building could not be saved, and there was no point in risking the lives of the firefighters. At no time was Silverstein talking about occupants, as you are attempting to imply.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 1:23 pm

  153. Steverino, I agree with your factual take, of course. At this point, I’m not debating anything at all with anyone about this unless they state, on the record, what they think happened. It really clarifies things.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:00 pm

  154. Stevernino. how is it that explosives were already in the building?

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:19 pm

  155. blubonnet, rather than “asking questions,” why don’t you tell us what your theory is? So far, all you have said is that “Bush let it happen” and “explosives were in the building.” Connect the dots. Tell us what happened with the 4 planes, 2 towers, field in PA, pentagon, etc. You must have a theory.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:25 pm

  156. Carlitos, if you are annoyed because there are no immediate answers, imagine how annoyed the 911 Truthers are, aware as they are, by the obvious absurdities of the government story, when anyone with a brain, that looks, can see it. However, it’s too mind boggling to consider, for some. Some are too weak to face uncofortable facts. If you can’t even follow the links I leave, why should I try to explain?

    Another thing, those that sneer and speak derisively about links being left, posted, are the same ones that will shoot down my words, whether I leave a link or not, so offering that adds credibility. Any responsible journalist will offer sources for their information. Not that I’m a journalist, but I am allowing others to consider the sources, and video is the best there is for a source. When one is arguing, the last thing they want to do, is read something they already are doubtful of. But clicking onto a few minutes of a video clip is easy to do.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:48 pm

  157. Stevernino. how is it that explosives were already in the building

    They weren’t, Blubonnet.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:55 pm

  158. If you can’t even follow the links I leave, why should I try to explain?

    If you can’t explain the links, why should we believe you understand anything in this debate.

    Already you’ve shown no knowledge of physics, no grasp of the truth, and a total unwillingness to even answer any of the many points I’ve raised.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:56 pm

  159. Carlitos, I’ve argued with blu in the past. She’s even worse now. She won’t even consider the evidence and arguments I present. And, as you have found, she will not give you a straight answer.

    Frankly, I don’t believe she knows anything about 911, and is just prattling off stuff she’s read elsewhere. Yes, I admit that’s a rude thing to say, but look at her comments and judge for yourself.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 9:59 pm

  160. Blubonnet, try rebutting any of my points in post #152. Don’t ask another question, just take a look at my words and then present a logical argument that counters mine.

    Are you up to it?

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:01 pm

  161. blubonnet, I am not asking for immediate answers. The reason that I dismissed your links is simple. I have read most of those sites, and plenty of 9/11 truth links. It is 2009. People have started to go off the deep end in their theories about what happened 8 years ago. I have watched Loose Change more than once. I have read the 9/11 Commission report. I have read a lot of debate on the subject online, and am familiar with many of the arguments you are making. A few years ago, I promised myself that I would not engage in the tit-for-tat argument that takes place when those on your side of the debate “ask questions.” It’s easy to ask questions. What is hard is stating an affirmative argument that you are willing to defend. I have done this. You have not.

    I don’t find it “mind boggling” or uncomfortable to state my theory about what happened that day. Why are you so reluctant to share your theory about what happened? After all of your reading, all of the video, all of the careful study you have done, can you not draw a conclusion and state, affirmatively, “here is my best guess as to what happened on September 11, 2001?”

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:01 pm

  162. blubonnet – You disappoint me. Here carlitos is being very patient with you as are others here and asking you to present a theory and being very open to listening. You, however, seem not very open at all to reviewing the claims presented by people on this blog showing the theories advanced by you having been debunked. Shouldn’t this be a two way street blubonnet? Gave you actually looked at any of the links presented by people here?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/1/2009 @ 10:04 pm

  163. First off, I’m not a liar, and second, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I told you a variety of possibilities. The only thing I know for sure, is that the government story defies physics. Many physicists have stated as much. Molten metal was found by firefighters and first responders after weeks, even, afterwards. Only thermite can do that. Metal, even if it were only weakened would still have cement preventing the total collapse and pulverization. It is true that never in history has fire brought down a steel and metal building. You could argue of course, that a plane hitting it made the difference, but of course no plane hit WTC7. Thermite was found, and there is a peer reviewed published paper by the numerous scientists in the 911 truth movement that have accomplished that. Of course there is a big gasp by some at the magazine, but the case was made and it was published. The name of the chemical physics journal. I believe the journal’s name is Bentham…? I should try and get that name exactly right, but I believe that is it.

    My affirmative statement is only that I KNOW the government story is BS. Period. I cannot know the whole story. A true unadulterated investigation has NOT been done. It was obviously a cover-up! It is probable, that it was, as false flag operations are meant to be, a means to generate the public will to go to war. That is my belief, but not my assumption.

    Also, about Silverstein, there is a claim that the asbestos which was a fire retardant, of course, the owner/leasee was expected to eliminate that from the steel frame. The cost of that would be unfathomable.

    Another point I need to make, is that the WTC designer and construction manager’s name was Frank de Martini. He did die in the attacks that day (I’ve already told this story, but I’ll repeat it for this argument). Rather than recalling the very important message he had regarding the strength of the towers, I will come back on my next post, with a video clip with him speaking (obviously B4 his death) and the matter of planes hitting the buildings, if it should occur. Only a possibility then, in his considerations of all possibilities. Believe me, it is relevant! Later! But not much later.
    Even after the the metal solidified again, it is in globs, not columns. The largest columns were immediately hauled away for “recycling” when at a crime scene, that is unacceptable.

    Silverstein said “pull it” a detonation term! He did not say “Pull out” or “Pull them all out”. He said “pull it”. Burning debris, in no way could send a 47 story building of cement and steel to the ground, while missing everything around it. It was an implosion. If you see it, and still deny it was an implosion, well your denial is made of stronger materials than the building.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:18 pm

  164. This is the designer of the WTCs.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:23 pm

  165. And that proves what exactly?

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (f774a9) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:27 pm

  166. For Stevernino, you want physics, and you know physics, well, acknowledge what these fellows have to say:

    The link #164, which AD-Rt/OS disputes (did he look at it?) explains by the builder, the way WTCs were made, tough as hell. It is relevant in the discussion.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:37 pm

  167. It proves blubonnet can embed a link, which proves she’s oh-so-sincere about her beliefs. Not sincere enough to actually state them, mind you, but sincere enough to let everyone else on earth do the talking for her.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:39 pm

  168. More physics. These are multiple structural engineers, and architects. Again:

    If you all aren’t interested in learning,…C-ya!

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:40 pm

  169. Once again, blubonnet avoids any direct argument. She refuses to debate any points. She just posts links to stuff that’s already been debunked. That indicates once and for all that she does not understand what she’s linking.

    I’m done with her. Anyone else who can get through to her is a better man than I am.

    BTW, blu, I could spend about 8 hours going over Steven Jones’s lies and distortions. You wouldn’t understand a third of it, though, so I am not going to waste my time and my finger muscles attempting to debate with someone who will not allow herself to be persuaded.

    If you ever change your mind and want an honest, link-free, open discussion, I will be here.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:43 pm

  170. Well, Stevernino, What makes for credibility in your book? Just me talking? I already know you’ll shoot me down. Facts by professionals, whose perspective and expertise are validating what I’m saying. What else have I got? I’ve done alot of talking. Just look at the length of my posts. Why does that have more weight in validity? It doesn’t. The professionals’ analysis does. If that doesn’t hold water for you, well, you just are unwilling to consider the facts presented. You want a specific perspctive and hell with the factual evidence, or so it seems. Did you look at the links?

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:45 pm

  171. No, I didn’t read your link, for I wished to know beforehand what the link was supposed to prove.
    The fact that Frank de Martini et al, are professional architects, and that they designed the WTC, only proves that they are professional architects, and that they designed the WTC.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (f774a9) — 5/1/2009 @ 11:57 pm

  172. Well, Stevernino, What makes for credibility in your book? Just me talking? I already know you’ll shoot me down. Facts by professionals, whose perspective and expertise are validating what I’m saying.

    Credibility is understanding what you’re linking to, blu. Credibility is being able to explain in your own words what you’re talking about. You haven’t done that.

    Just look at the length of my posts.

    I’ve tried…you keep saying the same things over and over. You don’t offer your own theory. You don’t offer your own refutations of the arguments of others. You merely parrot the words you’ve memorized somewhere else.

    Did you look at the links?

    Yes, I’ve looked at the links. Several times over the years. Now it’s time for you to respond directly to all of my arguments. DO NOT respond with yet another link: that shows you don’t understand my argument. Give me the respect I’ve shown you, and use your own words to counter mine.

    Here’s one last bit of info on why explosives were not used on the WTC buildings:

    The truthers make a big deal of the little puffs of smoke and debris that come out of the windows of the collapsing building. They use that as evidence explosives were used. In fact, it’s direct proof that explosives were NOT used.

    The puffs of debris start at the top floors, where the buildings have started to collapse. But that’s not how an actual demolition works. Ask anyone who’s ever seen one (I’ve seen about a dozen live). The point to demolishing a building is to let it collapse into itself. That’s done by blowing out the lower floors first to weaken the support for the entire building.

    Were the WTC buildings really demolished by explosives, you would have seen the puffs of debris fly out of the bottom of the building first, not the top.

    Now, that’s taken me about 20 minutes to type out (including interruptions from my boss). That’s just ONE point. It would take me quite literally days to go over all of the inaccuracies in the links you’ve posted.

    Blu, you have yet to show your analysis of anything I’ve said. Do you not wish to analyze my points? Or are you unable to?

    I’ll listen to what you have to say, but I’m getting tired of your endless links containing nothing but garbage. Present things in your own words, and I will respect your argument.

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:09 am

  173. Bullshit. What he said, and I guess I have to explain it althoug he explains much BETTER than I. He said that the towers were built to withstand a plane hitting, and in fact he believed that 2 planes could hit it, and it would still stand, despite the damage done.

    At the time 747s were not in existence, however, 747s are only slightly larger than the largest ones at the time. Also, he said he thought 2 planes hitting it, wouldn’t bring down the towers. Let me guess…you don’t believe me. Gee, maybe you should hear it from the builder himself on the LINK provided above!
    You said: No, I didn’t read your link, for I wished to know beforehand what the link was supposed to prove. Why can’t you read what I wrote before the link???? I don’t believe you are stupid, troublemaking…yes, stupid…no.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:12 am

  174. Demolitions experts disagree with you, Stevernino. I honestly believe you are in denial. Also, there is plenty of new technology which the military uses, which we are not privvy to knowing. So a few anomolies in the collapses varying with the traditional demolitons are not so surprising. Nevertheless, if you go by your assumptions that lower squibs were necessary for it to be an actual demolition, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Who could be close enough on a lower level on the ground to get the video footage of the squibs? That would be dangerous.

    Another thing, there are numerous testimonies of firefighters and survivors ON VIDEO TAPE, often covered with soot, and sometimes blood, if you google and look, these people describing, before the total collapse, which took seconds as well, in all towers, these people describe multiple explosions going off in the towers, that were NOT the planes hitting.

    Also, WTC7, visible in the link
    (which is why I wanted the link available for all to SEE it) is the collapse, which only takes seconds to go down, It does NOT damage (despite its 47 stories) anything around it! Also, indicative of an implosion is the top of the building, the center top, sinks down before the rest goes down. Also on the video.

    What I have done here is explain endlessly. An open mind and an honest assessment by one could have accomplished more in viewing the documentaries at least as well. Sorry you were offended by my offering links.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:32 am


    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:35 am

  176. *sigh*

    Blubonnet, I am ashamed that I am responding to your idiocy.

    While I am not a demolitions expert, I am, at the least, familiar with the process. To preform a controlled demolition requires weeks, sometimes months, of prep work. Structural members have to be cut. Wires, pipes, and duct work need to be removed, due to those having an impact in the way things fall. Structural members that are not cut completely have to be prepped to accept the charges, and then the charges themselves have to be placed.

    It would take – bare minimum – a month to do all that work. Per tower.

    Assuming you could get a big enough crew to do both towers in a week, you could NOT hide the charges or the det-cord that ran to them.

    I don’t know about you, but I didn’t hear a single survivor talking about the strange tangle of yellow and blue cord running to the pile of angle-iron where the water cooler used to be.

    The “explosions” people saw as the building collapsed are not explosions as YOU think of them, though they are a type of explosion, in as much as they are rapid changes in pressure.

    They were the floors above falling faster than the outside of the building.

    The floors fell faster because the section of the towers above the points of impact released from the skin of the building.

    Did you know that, unlike most buildings pretty much anywhere in the world, the World Trade Towers weren’t build with the usual “skeleton system” of most buildings? Look at pics of, say, the Sears Tower of the Chrysler Building going up. That lattice structure of those buildings, withe steel beams going up and across all over the place? Not used on the Twin Towers.

    The towers’ structural strength was the actual skin of the building. Which is why, when the beams holding the floors became weakened by the near-full loads of jet fuel that had been burning, and the sections above the points of impact fell due to the no longer being a full ring of structure (you know, those holes that the planes made?), the went before the rest of the tower. After a dozen or so floors, the beams that held the floors would have been largely unaffected by the fire, so when the tons and tons and tones of building hit those floors, they bent as they went, pulling inward on the outside walls they were attached to.

    That part is simple physics.

    And logic.

    I’m rather certain you are largely unacquainted with either.

    What I have done here is explain endlessly.

    You have explained nothing. You know (without actually knowing anything) that Bush is “teh 3vi1″, and are unable to accept that anything besides a foul, foul plot on his part could have any part in 9/11.

    You sound like the people who try and find reasons to keep claiming we never landed on the moon. You have no actual science, so you take images, and make up something that almost sounds like logic, reason, and science, but yet don’t actually dwell withing the same dimension as any of those things.

    They are pseudo-science and insanity, and if you ever wonder why we mock you, why we make jokes at your expense and insult you, it is for that reason.

    It is not because we are “afraid” of your staggering powers of logic and deduction.

    It is because you are an utter, complete, and total fucking moron who’s graduation from High School should serve as condemnation of the education system in this country.

    You are a tool of such epic proportions as to defy most human understanding.

    It is said that stupidity should be painful, and you are proof that it is. Sadly, the pain comes from reading the drivel that you post. I have to keep touching my ears and my eyes to make sure they aren’t bleeding from the rank idiocy your words inflict.

    Your excuse for how the current state of the art in demolitions could not have brought down the towers is to claim “magic technology”. That’s like me saying that Obama stole the election using secret computer technology to rig the system. You can not possible disprove my claim, and thus I win. My claim can not be disproven, thus you are defeated.

    I wish there was a way to pierce the shell of blatant retardation that you have surrounded yourself with, but alas I fear that it would be impossible. I am but a man, and hardly a sainted one, and so I lack the infinite patients needed fix the multitude of errors that form the sum of your complete and utter wrongness.

    And so, I will take my leave of this debate, and pray to whatever deity will hear my invocations that you just shut the God Damn Hell up, surl into a little ball, and die.

    Because surely your death alone would raise the average global IQ by several points.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:47 am

  177. Umm, Scott, I was with you until your last two sentences.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:59 am

  178. Demolitions experts disagree with you, Stevernino. I honestly believe you are in denial.

    Appeal to authority and an ad hominem. But no real response to anything I’ve said.

    Just another link.

    Also, there is plenty of new technology which the military uses, which we are not privvy to knowing.

    Of course! The military is magic!

    these people describe multiple explosions going off in the towers, that were NOT the planes hitting.

    This borders on intellectual dishonesty. First, of course the sounds weren’t the planes hitting. The planes had hit over an hour before. Second, the sounds were caused by pieces of the buildings falling and hitting other chunks. You’ve proven absolutely nothing.

    Also, indicative of an implosion is the top of the building, the center top, sinks down before the rest goes down. Also on the video.

    The building’s internal support collapsed because of the fire that was burning for some 7 hours.

    It does NOT damage (despite its 47 stories) anything around it!

    Of course it fell straight down. That’s simple physics. There were no forces acting on it to make it fall to the side. And for something that massive, with the upper floors not tilted off their center of gravity, it would have taken an incredible force to make it fall to the side. Again, the inner support of WTC7 collapsed because of the fires inside it. The building fell straight down because there was no reason for it to fall to one side.

    But you’d have to understand physics to know why that’s true. You don’t understand physics, do you, blu?

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:02 am

  179. And, as I showed in the video I linked, the explosives to cause an implosion start at the bottom and not the top.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:07 am

  180. By the way, blu, my handle here is Steverino. There’s only one “n” in it. Try to spell it right next time.

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:08 am

  181. Comment by John Hitchcock — 5/2/2009 @ 1:59 am

    Yeah… The hate kinda got the better of me.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:16 am

  182. Well, I think I proved my point. blubonnet is very into this subject, has read all of the experts, “knows” that government is lying, writes thousands and thousands of words on the subject, interacts in internet forums where they “study” every bit of minutia on 9/11 and the towers. The result:

    My affirmative statement is only that I KNOW the government story is BS. Period.

    That’s not a theory to explain the events of 9/11/01. She can’t state any possible theory, no matter how vague, as to what happened that day. None. No explanation for 4 flights full of people crashing, towers being hit by planes, the pentagon, Mohammad Atta and his merry men taking flight lessons, nothing.

    She has no theory. She just *knows* that the government story is BS. And that, my friends, is the brain of a conspiracist. They need to feel that only they have the truth, the secret knowledge, that if only we would research and believe and open our minds, we could see the truth.

    The sad thing is that there are conspiracies. Even big ones – Bernie Madoff comes to mind. Heck, Al Quaeda themselves conspired to pull off the attacks on 9/11/01. Not to mention Madrid, Bali, Cairo, Luxor, Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Istanbul, Tunisia, Riyadh, London…

    I feel sorry for people who think like this, but they aren’t going to listen to reason, so I’m not going to engage them on their individual bits of “evidence” long-ago debunked by people who use devastating facts and logic. Like the 9/11 Commission and Popular Mechanics, just to name a few. There is no need to demonstrate how wrong they are; they do a good enough job of this when they exhibit such a lack of facts and logic.

    blubonnet, if this is really important to you to help us see the truth, take a few moments, write down everything you know, and try to create a plausible series of events that may have occurred that day. Facts that fit with what you know, that the government of the United States let this happen on purpose, and that the 2 WTC towers were wired with explosives. Put it into succinct events, and see if it makes sense to you, then post it here. If you can’t do that, then cut and paste the most logical theory you have read on all of these forums. If none of them make enough sense to you, then you need to look long and hard at your belief system, and whether you just might be wrong.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:03 am

  183. “Everything I Know”, by blubonnet….

    crickets, etc…

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 11:27 am

  184. AD-RtR/OS,

    Debate points…zero.

    Ability to think

    Ability to study and think on things uncomfortable…zero.

    Ability to crack jokes…100%

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:02 pm

  185. Hey, I’m batting .250!
    You’re still working on an oh-fer.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:07 pm

  186. No blubonnet,

    I don’t think you crack jokes particularly well, so you get a zero there also. I do agree with your other self-scoring efforts. Get help.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:08 pm

  187. REMINDER: Einstein’s wisdom: “Whoever undertakes to set himself as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.”

    Here is a brief and insightful story: There was a farmer who needed a farm hand. He interviewed dozens and dozens of individuals. Finally, one individual was perfect. He seemed to understand much, was willing to work hard, and seemed perfect in every way. He got hired. After the interview, and confirmation of his job, he left. The farmer turned to his wife, and said, “Well, honey, all our problems are solved, or they have only just begun.”

    Another point: The worst kind of learning disorder is ALREADY KNOWING EVERYTHING.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:10 pm

  188. Listening to the teacher, one acquires an education.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:26 pm

  189. blubonnet, I do not not everything. Not even close.

    For example, I don’t know what your theory is about what happened on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001. Why is that? Can’t you even go find someone else’s plausible theory, and cut & paste it here? Why not?

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:30 pm

  190. I don’t know why I bother debating. You all miss much of what I have said already. As a matter of fact, I have also mentioned that the few points I already shared, are the tip of the iceberg. There are at least 50 points, showing the absurdity of the government story. I’m losing interest in sharing what I know, and since you all have already missed too much of what I’ve said I suggest you get over yourselves, start looking for yourselves, despite the cold rushes of realizations. I’ve done it. You have not done it sufficiently. Otherwise, you wouldn’t continue to sound off your (I’m sorry) ignorance.

    Oddly, you want to hear it all from me, instead of the hundreds and hundreds of testimonies from every relevant professional, giving explanations with their professional backgrounds to back them up.

    Stashiu3, Cracking jokes is not my intent. My wit is better suited elsewhere. This subject isn’t a comedy source. Oh, I know, now you are going to say: ha-ha-ha…”but you are funny, blubonnet”. Simplemindedness is what I seem to be dealing with, and your intention of staying there, seems hopeless. You do know I was addressing
    AD-RtR/OS, don’t you? Maybe not.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:32 pm

  191. For example, I don’t know what your theory is about what happened on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001. Why is that?

    blubonnet is just asking questions.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:46 pm

  192. I don’t know why I bother debating.

    She’s not here for a debate. She’s here to fill a psychological need for comfort, security and attention. It also serves well to hijack the thread.

    Comment by Apogee (e2dc9b) — 5/2/2009 @ 12:47 pm

  193. Well, I thought it was obvious in my posts above, but I’ll try one more time. Good sports-viewing today on TV :)

    I’m not interested in hearing all of the things wrong with the government story. I understand those arguments, have read them, and find that they lack credibility. I have seen what you have seen, and I have come to a different conclusion. You are welcome to criticize or even insult my logic. That’s fine. But, I have said what I think happened that day. The 9/11 Commission has said what they think happened that day. Many people have said what they believe happened. You have not.

    The government story is a theory, a hypothesis about WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY. It can be examined and criticized. You can poke holes in it, and people can evaluate your logic in doing so.

    After all of your reading, all of the websites, all of the discussion, you must have either developed a theory or read a good one. Please share with us an alternative theory for WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY. Every 9/11 conspiracy site I have seen has a whole bunch of alternative theories. What is the best theory to explain WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY.

    Do you undertand – not what DIDN”T happen. What HAPPENED. Any theory at all.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:13 pm

  194. Oddly, you want to hear it all from me, instead of the hundreds and hundreds of testimonies from every relevant professional, giving explanations with their professional backgrounds to back them up.

    Yes, in your own words. What happened?

    Hundreds of professionals have given opinions on the JFK assassination, hundreds of books written, thousands of hours of video examination, and yet I’m able to explain it in a sentence. A disgruntled ex-Marine fired a couple of shots from the book depository, and one of those bullets killed the President.

    What is your explanation of what happened on 9/11/01? Or, if you don’t have one, cut and paste your favorite theory from someone else.

    Again, respectfully, this should be a pretty simple request.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:32 pm

  195. blubonnet – You don’t even bother to address the basic flaws in your theories. The molten “steel” that the Truthers claim was found at the bottom of the wreckage of the towers – was it ever tested to determine if it was actually steel and not some other metal such as aluminum that melts at a significantly lower temperature? How do you account for the fact that steel loses a significant amount of its strength, approx. 50% at temperatures well within that of the fire in the towers and that the design of the towers itself would have made the expansion of the steel support beams a critical factor in causing it’s collapse? How do you account for the fact that the puffs of smoke or squibs that people saw coming from floors of the towers only came from lower floors as the collapse progressed rather than cimultaneously before the collapse in order to cause it as is done with a controlled demolition?

    Could you address the above please?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:53 pm

  196. I don’t know why I bother debating.

    But you haven’t debated anything, blu. I have made several posts with cogent arguments about why the truthers are wrong in specific instances. You have yet to respond to a single point of mine. All you have said is “Demolition experts disagree” with me and that I’m in denial.

    That’s not debating.

    It would probably surprise you to know that there are demolition experts who agree with me.

    And here’s a link for you:

    Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

    It cites a paper by Brent Blanchard, a bona fide explosion expert, who says the demolition theories are pure bunk. You can download his entire paper, it’s in PDF format. Here are some money quotes:

    “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
    PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”

    When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition,
    many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
    is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds
    the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.
    Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are
    collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All
    lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from
    Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
    would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
    impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
    Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
    throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
    buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
    explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

    (Emphasis in original)

    See, blu, I can link, too. And you can’t refute this one. (Of course, you couldn’t refute any of my points, why should I think you’d be able to refute a professional’s?)

    There’s more…but I’m betting you’re too cowardly to read my link.

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/2/2009 @ 1:56 pm

  197. blu – With respect to WTC7, the Truthers are fond of only showing views of the North side of the building rather than the South side of the building where fires raged all day long. If you look at video or photos of the South side it clearly looks like at least 20 sories are on fire. Firefighters were in fact worried that the entire building was going to collapse hours before it actually did. Those conversations are on the record. The debris pile was not a pancake it was 12 stories high. How did the controlled demolition experts arrange all those fires over the course of the day without affecting their charges?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:06 pm

  198. “… My wit is better suited elsewhere…”

    Well, you’re half-way there.

    BTW, I don’t “debate” with Truthers.
    Dueling with un-armed individuals is against my personal code-of-honor.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:10 pm

  199. The thing is, I’m not debating. blu won’t offer an argument that I can debate. Which is really telling.

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/2/2009 @ 2:45 pm

  200. carlitos – I’d really like her to use her own words and opinions instead of constantly referring people elsewhere. It’s like her own opinion doesn’t exist the way she writes these comments.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/2/2009 @ 3:55 pm

  201. “(She) is only the messenger.”

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (0f5224) — 5/2/2009 @ 4:30 pm

  202. Learning new things, hurts.

    Comment by The Emperor7 (1b037c) — 5/2/2009 @ 4:42 pm

  203. daleyrocks: as I’ve said, she doesn’t understand the arguments. She just parrots off what she’s read without even the ability to analyze it. She doesn’t have an argument of her own.

    It’s like using a special 9/11 version of Eliza

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/2/2009 @ 5:04 pm

  204. You all, go debate with physicists. Physicists, government intelligence officials, firefighters, Congress men and women, former NASA honcho, pilots, police, NORAD professionals, I could go on and on, but I’m not going to. These and many others realize that the government story is bogus, and don’t have all the answers either, except for the acknowledgement (from their professional expertise) that the government story is contrary to reality.

    By the way, one of the first times I’d heard of it, was a book review from Robert Baer, of the book “The New Pearl Harbor”.

    As far as “getting attention” being spoken to derisively most of the time, while on this subject, I’ve accepted, but, it’s not my favorite kind of attention.

    Steverino, I myself, could tell something was wrong from day one. NORAD failed numerous times that day. Once might be understandable, but after that, how can you not raise your eyebrows, and question. Shock makes for mindless cooperation though. That is what happened. Even with a few questions, I still accepted the government story, and put my own analysis aside. But, you all are either still in shock, or you can’t look honestly at the disturbing facts. But, as I started hearing things, it started to make sense, my reservatons about the government story, and the factual accounts. So, saying I only parrot others is false, and a cheap, empty remark. I did not suspend my analytical perspective for long. It was the first year after it happened I started realizing what I needed to, and yes I listened to experts, with knowledge of…PHYSICISTS. You all are still there, bypassing your own ability for independent analysis, not being attentive to professionals perspectives, you still are blindly obliging to the government story.

    Scott Jacobs, nice chunk of words that have no validity. I’m sure after being on the internet for years, you’ve learned all the insults with the biggest impact, and polished a few of your own. It’s obvious that all of your bellowing is a cover for lack of actual knowledge.

    As far as “not using her own words” My posts are some of the longer ones here.

    Comment by blubonnet (ae1d2a) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:03 pm

  205. Yup, I agree, blu suffers from logorrhea.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:13 pm

  206. blubonnet — 5/2/2009 @ 7:03 pm

    You do know that you are totally nug but futz, right?

    Comment by EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:15 pm

  207. NORAD failed numerous times that day.

    NORAD is set up to look outside of the US, not inside of it.

    Did you read the link I provided? Did you read the paper from the demolition expert? (I am betting the answer is no.)

    So, saying I only parrot others is false, and a cheap, empty remark.

    But that’s ALL you’ve done here. You haven’t presented us with an argument. All you’ve done is link to others. That’s the very definition of parroting.

    You haven’t shown that you understand any of the points we have presented here, and your only response is that others disagree. Well, a whole lot of physicists, chemists, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, architects, and other professionals disagree with YOU. What do you make of that?

    As far as “not using her own words” My posts are some of the longer ones here.

    Once again, you border on intellectual dishonesty. The point isn’t your long and rambling posts: the point is that you have yet to present an argument.

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:48 pm

  208. Scott Jacobs, nice chunk of words that have no validity.

    Then give me a point-by-point refutation of my words, or be gone.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 5/2/2009 @ 7:53 pm

  209. “As far as “not using her own words” My posts are some of the longer ones here.”

    blu – Absolutely, to refer to what other people say.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 5/2/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  210. These and many others realize that the government story is bogus, and don’t have all the answers either, except for the acknowledgement (from their professional expertise) that the government story.

    Great. So now we know that the government story isn’t true. Got it.

    So what is the most likely alternative explanation, either in your words, or in the words of others. What happened that day? Who did what?

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/3/2009 @ 11:37 am

  211. Carlitos, as far as I can tell, blu’s theory is this:

    1. The government knew that terrorists were going to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC and Pentagon, but let it happen anyway.

    2. Just in case the plane crashes didn’t cause the WTC to collapse, the government planted thousands of tons of super-secret military demolition explosives in WTC1, 2, and 7. These explosives were set off some time after the plane crashes.

    3. The owner of WTC7 was in on it.

    4. Bush is evil because of the Carlyle Group.

    5. No plane actually hit the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile. The plane that the government said hit the Pentagon was flown to a secret location, where the passengers were killed by government operatives.

    6. Flight 93 did not crash, it was shot from the sky by military planes. They did this because the people in Flight 93 would have realized this was a government operation and had to be killed.

    7. Some physicists think the government story is wrong. A lot more physicists think the government story is correct, but that doesn’t matter because they are all gullible.

    8. Bush made a lot of money off the War on Terrorism. Bush’s net worth is well-known, and that money hasn’t shown up in any bank accounts yet. That’s because it’s secret.

    Comment by Steverino (1b3695) — 5/3/2009 @ 11:49 am

  212. #211 Steverino:

    Carlitos, as far as I can tell, blu’s theory is this:

    As far as I can tell, blu is bfnutz and accessing the Internet from the day room at a mental health facility.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/3/2009 @ 12:01 pm

  213. Going back to the ideas of people who live in the real world, Charles Krauthammer says what I said about torture: it is justifiable in extreme circumstances to save lives.

    Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other “enhanced interrogation” techniques — face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space — torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 5/3/2009 @ 12:13 pm

  214. Thanks Steverino. It’s sad that blu couldn’t do that herself, isn’t it?

    Comment by carlitos (eeffbc) — 5/3/2009 @ 1:15 pm

  215. The really sad thing, carlitos, is that it sounds even whackier when you write it all down. Maybe that’s why blu didn’t bother?

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 5/3/2009 @ 2:30 pm

  216. #214 & 215, carlitos and Steverino: There is a certain not insignificant portion of the population that suffers from mental and physical maladies that affect their cognition.

    This is apparently one of those, judging from the exceedingly tenuous grasp on reality.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (5766f7) — 5/3/2009 @ 2:34 pm

  217. [...] Editors somehow managed to publish an entire article regarding whether waterboarding was effective without once mentioning its biggest reported success. [...]

    Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32) — 1/1/2010 @ 10:31 am

  218. [...] Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times: Our Article on theThe L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly … The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, … Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, [...]

    Pingback by Treasury 20dept | ValBook (b40a08) — 3/5/2011 @ 11:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5655 secs.