There were no planes!

There was no anthrax!

j/k

One thing we could use more of is an open-eyed thirst for the truth, wherever it may lead.

And no, I don't mean "911 Truth." Obviously, any curiosity should eventually be satisfied with enough reason and fact.

Oh I've done it now...

I know for a fact that producers from that show read my blog regularly and use things all the time. And while they should credit things, I strongly prefer that they use what I find/write with no credit than not use it at all.

-- GlennGreenwald

...but there's no reason that you couldn't graciously reference such uncredited uses of your work in your next post. Something like a "corrections" feature that you'd find in a paper. Perhaps some of those who regularly use your work uncredited would get tired of finding their names there, and would start to credit your work.

Asking questions of a genuinely perplexing situation - without offering half-baked "theories" - is a good thing, the mark of intellectual honesty and investigative curiosity.

One thing we've got enough of in this world is people jumping violently to conclusions. One thing we could use more of is an open-eyed thirst for the truth, wherever it may lead.

Yeah. A 737's fuel load is 6,875 US gallons and a 767's is 23,980 U.S. gallons.

Which plane would someone pick for the 'most damage' and would you pick a short haul or a long haul one?

On a side note, I laughed at the first video I saw of the tower with the huge wound. They were saying it was a 'Cessna'. Uh, no sparky. Guess again. Only when my mind went that far did I realize that something was very wrong. No fog, no rain and yet a plane hits that building. Yeah, it's no accident. Dead hit too, nearly dead center...

Revisiting the anthrax bioterror threat, I reran into the fact that Judith Miller was the target of an anthrax hoax, and I couldn't help but think:

fake journalist - fake anthrax

(Was someone trying to legitimize J. Miller?)

From everything I've read, and it's been extensive over the past couple of days (including the recent revelation about Ivins borrowing the lypholizer) I have no strong reason to doubt that he was indeed the sender.

It would probably be best not to allow this to spiral out of control, thus minimizing or obscuring the important points Glen was trying make, i.e. that of ABC news' complicity in spreading government generated fear tactics in the wake of 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq.

All of the personal information on the social worker is almost irrelevant in my mind, as I couldn't care less whether she was busted for DWI (much less what time it occurred) or a domestic squabble/disturbance. It may well be possible that she's being manipulated or even blackmailed by the FBI into playing a role which would help them close the case (and that would indeed raise suspicions of something far more sinister) or that she wants her 15 minutes of fame. I doubt both.

I think we're all starting to lose focus.

A commenter who used to frequent the original UT, (some called him a troll) whose critique (from the left) of America's founding was not unlike like the rampant anti-government conspiracism one finds here today, especially on these type of threads. All the Founders were slave owning aristocrats whose only intent was to subvert liberty by founding a white elitist, sexist and racist plutocracy ruled only and forever by wealthy landowners. Nothing could be further from the truth - except all the fantastical nonsense on display here during one of these threads - and KO and his producers were probably doing Glenn a favor because if a mere mention of this blog drove traffic up with new readers, and any of them had read through some of the comments on display, they'd probably never come back. By the same token, people on the right, across the spectrum, are often just as clueless as David Byron, usually about a different set of myths they have cultivated to fit their own peculiar world view. It's very sad, really. And Glenn, unintentionally, and by keeping silent on some of these issues, can appear to give some the impression he does not disagree with certain of the more bizarre notions, and this appears to lends credibility to them, and legitimiize them in the minds of some commenters and readers, and gives the false impression that he espouses similar views. It will hurt his credibility in the long run.

-That's funny, I had all the mirrors taken out of the house a few years ago. Truth's pretty good, but mercy is better.-

So there was a reflection? Just wondering.

-And while they should credit things, I strongly prefer that they use what I find/write with no credit than not use it at all.-

Atta boy.

'It's all for the common good. Knock yourself out.'

Though, I'd be happy to see you occupying Olbermann's chair next time he takes a week off.

As with the Obama-engineered-the-FISA-capitulation meme, Glenn is clearly leading us to believe something that he will not come out and say explicitly himself. He should state his theory of the case or stop with the leading questions.

Glenn's "many unanswered questions" suggest that we entertain the following: that 1) the government's version of who was behind the attacks (Ivins) is full of holes, highly misleading, and likely false, and 2) the sources who fed to credulous reporters false suggestions that Iraq was behind the attacks were very possibly U.S. Governmant scientists in the same lab tht the Government itself alleges was the source of the anthrax.

The obvious suggestion here is that some of these sources are in fact the attackers, and that this episode was a deliberate attack by a government (even if unsanctioned at high levels) on its citizens in order to terrorize them and make them compliant to the Government's wishes for expanded domestic authority over citizen liberty and accepting of a greater range of foreign action in the name of security. This concern is Glenn Greenwald's animating purpose, and is plainly laudable.

However, he should be explicit about the limits of his beliefs and suspisions, what he suspects and does not suspect our governmant to have done to us. The line of investigation he undertakes on this matter, and in particular his way of presenting his thinking, are highly suggestive, and if he intends the interpretation I outline, potentially hugely inflammatory (and of course deserving of the greatest level of outrage if true).

But we should hear from Glenn just what he suspects before we give these suggestions the weight of his voice.

Glenn: would love to hear from you on this.