Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 950 Editor's Choice: 102
Manjoo writes:
All rely on photos to make their case, the same images that the rest of us use to support our version of the story.
My doubts -- and those of many, many, many others -- rely on the fact that Building 7 was clearly demolished. There are a lot of other problems with the official conspiracy theory, but you don't have to get farther than Building 7 to know that it's fucked up. You start there and the rest unravels.
I don't have to prove exactly how 9/11 was pulled off. I only know the official conspiracy is bunk, which is what matters -- that's the useful information. Was the Pentagon hit by a missile or a plane full of people from Dulles? Who cares? Building 7 was demolished and the official conspiracy theory denies this -- indeed has no explanation for this.
Once you get that far, you have your information: it was an inside job. It is a distraction to feel obligated to try to show how it was carried out -- does that really matter? How could you in any case without access to the crime scene?
Tip to Manjoo: it is the urge to follow the herd and deny facts that leads people to embrace the official conspiracy theory. The official theory just doesn't hold up:
Why do buildings fall at the speed of gravity? Why would the one hit second, the one hit more off center, the one that had the least amount of fuel burning inside of it (we all saw it shoot out the other side) fall first? Why did news reporters and firemen report major explosions in the basements (base charges, common with demolition)? Why was the steel at the bottom of "ground zero" liquefied for days, as you would expect in a demolition? Why did members of the official investigation team have to fight to even get access to the site? All of this is more suspicious, again, because Building 7 was obviously demolished.
None of these questions come from pictures or make conclusions based on shaky science; they all come from the public record.
Mattwa writes:
They were not, however, designed to stand indefinitely with a jetliner burning inside them.
1) Yes they were. They were built to withstand raging carbon fires. 2) They didn't have burning jetliners inside them. Most of the fuel exploded out of the building on impact -- particularly with the second strike. You can see people standing in the holes made by the airplanes hoping to get rescued. The black smoke pouring out is a signal of very low temperature fire.
Jeffrey D -- it could be that Bush knew nothing about this. It could be that he did and could still barely believe it was happening. Who knows? But Bush acting like a fool is much less evidence to me than the fact that Building 7 was demolished -- and if al Qaida could get into our WTC buildings and plant explosives, why go to the trouble of hijacking planes?
...this discussion puts it to rest.
Simple affiliation with Wright is a "problem" for Obama. Yet complex relationships had by white politicians with corporate heads whose private views are obscured receive little press outrage -- even when big donations appear to get policy at odds with the public interest. What an appalling double standard. Even the Ken Lay-Bush relationship, which didn't get the same MSM coverage that Obama-Wright has received, never looked at what Lay thought about blacks or American history. What are all of the personal views of Clinton donors, who have stronger political ties to Clinton than Wright has to Obama? I guess Wright's crime is that he said what he thought publicly.
And what did Wright say?
Goddamn America for nuking two cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I invite people to tell me how God thought this was okay.
Clinton doesn't know what it was like to grow up black? Clinton supporters -- is there something I don't know here?
This nation and the major forces in the world have been run by rich white people. The Fed's willingness to bail out Bear Sterns with a sweetheart $30 billion loan backed up by our tax dollars -- without Congressional approval -- pretty much lets me know this is still the rule. Does anyone claim that rich whites haven't been running the show?
While Wright has said some things that may be baseless (AIDS was a plot against blacks), do Clinton supporters really think that Obama is responsible for everything that his pastor says? Is Hillary Clinton responsible for everything Walmart has ever done? She was on their board -- she didn't just shop there. Is Clinton responsible for everything Web Hubble did or said? He was her law partner. Is Clinton responsible for everything her husband did, from NAFTA to all the international deals that allowed her to lend her campaign $5 million?
Looks like Wright may be on to something when he points the finger at this nation.
You are right -- that's an elephant, not a donkey.
...that here and elsewhere the MSM is reporting that Clinton won Michigan without mentioning that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. That seems like an important piece of information in the story (i.e. not all the voters in Michigan got a chance to vote for their candidate).
So as I understand it, you aren't just policing Obama's message. You're not even just policing the message of people with whom he is associated. You are assessing the tone of the messages of those with whom he is associated. Hope you're consistent about that with all other politicians.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
