There were no 737's hijacked. 737's are nicknamed "guppies" in the airline industry because they are relatively small.

Just saying...

I still think Steven Hatfill is the anthrax terrorist, and that the Ivins suicide is just the latest, and perhaps last, in a string of amazingly good breaks for him. The evidence pointing to Hatfill is all circumstantial, but strikingly and alarmingly so. Go back and read some of the reporting on him; it's almost unbelievable that investigators could not somehow find hard evidence against him. And he won the recent defamation settlement with the FBI, as far as I know, based on the way the FBI conducted its investigation rather than on the merits of its evidence against him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26015772

or click on signature.

I don't get MSNBC.

Thanks for posting.

Oddly, I found the idea that a structural problem with the beam attachments to the core of the structure of the towers at least plausible, or at least remotely possible.

If the towers were basically beams radiating out from a central core and that basic central core was removed or damaged for greater than probably 2 or 3 stories and over a certain percentage of circumference then what is supposed to keep the beams in place and what would keep the outer skin attached. Pretty much nothing. You have a stable structure with no stabilizing core anymore. The weight of the floors above would have been enough to cause partial collapse and once that started, the other floors weren't capable or designed for carrying that weight in the way that it was being carried. Many buildings have 'pancaked' before. Plus with a building of that age and heights and the stresses of the years of wind and weather, who knows what additional stress could have accumulated in them.

It's either that or believing that Controlled Demolition came in that weekend and wired the entire place for demolition. They are about the only ones that could 'drop' a building of that size in the ground floor footprint without having the building or major debris take out any building within 500 feet. Or, how about this idea: It was wired from the time it was built for instant demolition. Why? Who needs a reason when there are 'experts' seeing puffs of smoke and dust...

Now, WTC building 7 is a mystery. I believe that was the one that came down suddenly and wasn't touched by any debris. Really odd that one is... What would cause that? Spontaneous demolition? Yeah, like the 'immaculate' conception... Did Deutsche Bank not pay the Bushist toll? Is that why their building was left standing?

Duley's restraining order was not even filed until after Ivins released himself from the mental facility. I do not know what the laws are in Maryland, but in CA a a patient cannot be committed to a mental facility unless they agree to go, and then they can only be kept for 48 hrs, and yes they can release themselves. This is why we have so many people on the streets.

But I thought I would post a link to a recent washingtonpost.com, and what a new little twist to say the least......

Title of article:

Anthrax Dryer a Key To Probe

Suspect Borrowed Device From Lab

http://tinyurl.com/6jvnjo

It's getting crazier every hour..... huh?

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.

-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.

-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.

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.