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.

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?)

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...

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.

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.

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...

There were no planes!

There was no anthrax!

j/k

I see what you are saying, but I had no reason to doubt that Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber.

I was pretty convinced that Hatfill was the anthrax killer. He seemed to fit the mold..the mold that was leaked, that is.

Now I'm supposed to just switch focus and find it equally obvious that the anthrax killer was always Ivins, because he was a "wussy, God like, red cross volunteering, church going, sorority obsessing (kind of), psycho gun toting homocidal maniac who was too dumb to know that killing yourself with Tylenol is a painful, inefficient way to die" kind of guy.

Sorry, the switch was too fast for me and I can't wrap my mind around it that quick.

True enough. Admittedly, I didn't follow the anthrax scare very closely then and am not aware of what details were "leaked" re: Hatfill.

However, a helluva lot of speculation and, well investigation has been going on via Greenwald's blog over the past couple of days and we haven't even seen any of the honest to goodness FBI information - just little leaks. They have promised (yeah, for what it's worth) to divulge their case first to the families of the victims and then to the public at large in the next few days or weeks so I think we should at least wait for that.

Other than holding ABC News accountable for divulging their sources of false information regarding Iraq, I really don't see the point in continuing to see just how far the rabbit hole we can take this thing.

My two cents.

A "curtain wall" building is like a fir tree, a Christmas tree. A central core, with each floor cantilevered to the core. the outer walls are "curtain walls", they hang from the top of each floor.

Just like a fir tree with a single trunk and branches radiating from the trunk, you can do anything you want to the branches, saw off bunches of them. The core will still be there unless it is cut through somewhere.

The WTC towers were not pieces "stacked" on one another.

I'm pretty sure a high wind produced more side and twisting forces on those towers than the jet, which was chewed up like brie through a cheese grater.

The entire theory of the "collapse is based on misconceptions about how those buildings are built. I could see huge pieces of the cantilevered floors falling away, but what cut the central core at the bottom? Into lengths? Go and look at the pictures of the towers under construction.

The best thing we can do with the 9-11 is to look at "what happened" and "Who did it" as two completely separate questions, to start with.

And the core was triangulated on all four sides to form a box structure. Its diagonals and uprights ran for many floors, and could not "pancake".

I deny any responsibility for planning or carrying out the attacks. It was mean.