Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11.

What does it really take.

'Fixed idea' - an idea that has become imbedded into ones reality structure to a point questioning it becomes next to impossible.

I heard you express such when Jesse brought up the 9-11 conspiracy. That fixed idea was 'how is it possible for SO MANY PEOPLE to participate in it without it falling apart or being exposed'.

But how many people ACTUALLY need to be actively involved in a conspiracy relating to what happened on 9-11. This considering BY FAR the most likely conspiracy was Cheney becaming aware of the Al Qaida hijacking plot from the DOD task force that was tasked to accumulating intelligence on Al Qaida and Osama, and simply made arrangements on the down low to maximize the chances for it to succeed. Hence, after months of completely ignoring Richard Clarke and Osama and AL Qaida, a sudden flurry of exercises were ordered to take place on 9-11 and 9-12. How likely the chance that idea originated in Cheney's office, went to Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or Feith and became a series of orders. Thats all it takes because THAT'S THE WAY THE MILITARY OPERATES. It only takes ONE person at the top to set such plans into motion. No one else needs to know and why would they suyspect anything. Various exercises and scenarios are ordered routinely. And the  military, even more than the Bushco bureaucracy, CARRIES OUT ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION.  

For just THAT much to occur, no more than three people were needed to plan and execute it, Cheney to plan it, Addington to assist in the planning and do the person to person no record arrangements, and Rumsfeld OR Wolfowitz OR Feith to issue the orders 'from the top' to set in motion the exercises and restictions that were operational on 9-11 that so contributed to the success of the hijackers. And one person, the DIA officer in charge of that Osama tracking/intelligence task force that disbanded and 'destroyed' all their materials prior to 9-11 (which in the DOD NEVER occurs, the DOD saves everything, they have hundred acre facilities around the country for the purpose, and for SURE materials relevant to someone like Osama) to keep their mouth shut. A sargeant from that task force DID later made a stink that they had found out about the 9-11 plot, in detail, but without those DESTROYED materials to back him up, it came to naught. In a says vs. says situation in the military pitting a sargeant against a colonel or general ... and that officer having already seen how effectively t he Bush administration shut down any meaningful investigation ... And when it somes to the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is bigger and better funded that all other intelligence agencies put together, while the CIA and even the NSA have had numerous 'leaks', try to think of another leak that ever came from the DIA. Fricking place is the ultimate black hole.  

Include the explosives theories and add in 4 more, almost surely israeli, authorization for and a couple special ops types to carry out what was authorized at the black on black level. Cheney, if you recall, kept in VERY close contact with the Mossad and Israeli defense force with Addington attending multiple deep black meetings and tyhe Israelis were DESPERATE to take out Hussein and neutralize Iran.

That's all it would take. And at that level and with those people there ARE NO leaks. Not now, not ever.

There is no question there was a massive, and mostly successful, effort by the Bush administration to cover up anything having to do with 9-11. It was a massive effort to even get an investigation at all, pitiful as it was. What information that was obtained was like pulling teeth and involved court rulings. Neither is there any question there were glaring and muliple 'wrongnesses' connected with 9-11 in myraid areas.  

The most glaring and obvious of all being the fact there were NO by the book criminal investions, indictments, trials or prosecutions ALLOWED of the largest mass murder in America's history AND IT WAS SWALLOWED IN TOTO BY THE MASSES. In case you are still a bit hazy on just how insanely effective and knowingly used their propagnda machine was. Keep in mind Cheney was not only by far the most ruthless and effective bureaucracy lever puller and button pusher to ever hold the Vice Presidency, but that he was ALSO by far the most effective MEDIA and PERCEPTION MOLDING bureaucrat to ever hold the Vice Presidency ... and this is important ... THAT HE UNDERSTOOD BEFOREHAND HE COULD AND KNEW HOW TO EFFECTIVELY SHUT DOWN ANY REAL INVESTIGATION OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9-11 AND UTTERLY MARGINALIZE  AS CONSPIRACY 'WACKOS' THOSE POINTING AND SCREAMING AT THE NAKED EMPEROR (cough cough). If you can get past your fixed idea more than a handful of people needed to be 'in on' a conspiracy and consider that same handful definitively DID go on to orchestrate the wanton mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians overseas ... well then maybe you can stop doing the work of covering their asses for them with your warrantless pooh poohing of even the POSSIBILITY a conspiracy could have existed.

Unless, I suppose, you think an actual full by the books investigation of 9-11 and all events pertinent therein, followed by indictments and trials, if warranted, should never take place and the utterly compromised by Bush and Cheney investigation that did take place should be the final word on the subject.
 
 

< Heinous Resolution 2346 | Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? >
 Display:
"A sargeant from that task force later made a stink that they had found out about the 9-11 plot, in detail, but without those DESTROYED materials to back him up"

Not true. He wasn't a "Sargent" and his allegations were not substantiated. Feel free to research this in detail and we can talk more about it if you like.

"And when it somes to the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is bigger and better funded that all other intelligence agencies put together"

So wrong as to be laughable.

"try to think of ONE leak that ever came from the DIA. Fricking place is the ultimate black hole."

Took me three seconds to locate a copy of "Still Broken" by A.J. Rossmiller 2008 on Amazon for $19. And that's just the first thing I found.

"Include the explosives theories and add in 4 more, almost surely israeli, authorization for and a couple special ops types to carry out what was authorized at the black on black level."

Four people planted enough explosives to bring down the WTC? Please...

"The most glaring and obvious of all being the fact there were NO by the book criminal investions, indictments, trials or prosecutions ALLOWED"
 
And the thousands of FBI and ATF agents who are still investigating as well as the indictment, trial and conviction of Mohammad al-Qahtani the "20th hijacker" - that just didn't happen?

Why is it conspiracy theorists always seem to be yelling?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/09/2009 12:30:44 AM EST

"And the thousands of FBI and ATF agents who are still investigating as well as the indictment, trial and conviction of Mohammad al-Qahtani the "20th hijacker" - that just didn't happen?"

http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2 009/01/13/AR2009011303372.h tml

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution. "

apparently not.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 02:16:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That your claim there was no investigation is validated because the tortured confessions were thrown out? There still were investigations. You said there weren't.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/10/2009 01:12:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]

lex parsimoniae  "When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" . William of Ockham

In other words, Cenk is 100% correct: to many moving parts.

Starting from the top

 THAT'S THE WAY THE MILITARY OPERATES. It only takes ONE person at the top to set such plans into motion.

How is that different from any hierarchical organization?

No one else needs to know and why would they suyspect anything.

An operation that involves multiple services in numerous subordinate commands would require extensive coordination.

Questions are asked, operation orders are generated, exercises are briefed and rehearsed. Only in the movies does the military jump up and "go do it"

And the  military, even more than the Bushco bureaucracy, CARRIES OUT ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION. 

You watch to many movies.

True, the US military  follows orders, but the commissioned and  non-commissioned officers are under no obligation to follow illegal orders, particularly the execution of offensive operations within the territory of the US .

Furthermore the make up of the military does not change other than the political appointees from administration to administration.

The assumption that the forces of the US military are mindless GI Joe automatons does a disservice to the men and women in uniform.

To assume that the military would sit back and execute an attack on the US is ludicrous at the extreme.

Various exercises and scenarios are ordered routinely.

The military does execute numerous exercises.

None I can assure you involve civilian air space or interaction in cites and towns other than civil defense and disaster exercises that are organized and coordinated by nonmilitary agencies like FEMA,DOH DOE and other agencies.

 "And when it somes to the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is bigger and better funded that all other intelligence agencies put together"

The DIA is primarily concerned with order of battle, strengths and capabilities.

They spend the largest amount simply because they have numerous satellites and terrestrial sensor systems that collect photo and signals intelligence to

  • evaluate capabilities of equipment and weapons systems
  • locate and track military forces from nations of interest.  
  • monitor technological development nations of interest

Come on, this really isn't that hard.

This passage is instructive on the use of intelligence...its political use:

Comparing Iraq with the Soviet Union is instructive however. The Russians never were ten feet tall as the CIA made them out to be, and Iraq was a crippled midget, contrary to the fearsome portrait of neoconservative propaganda.

Bush dismissed Islamic terrorists like Clinton did, and Bush I, Reagan and Carter and the presidents before them did.

He was more concerned with cutting taxes than some fringe jihadist groups.

They were Arabs after all, traditionally disorganized, disloyal to their causes and mistakenly though to be powerless. Fanatical leaders since the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 30's have been issuing calls for jihad against the west, or at least certain countries in the west. Please.

What we have here is an administration who made a decision politically safe decision to continue to "monitor" the situation rather than act, an administration that did not want anything to distract for their economic agenda.An administration that was banking on the 'peace dividend enjoyed by Clinton to allow more tax reductions. The last thing they wanted was a "war" of any kind.

Recall that Bush I was caught flat footed, just like his son was by 9-11, by Iraq. Iraq had been rattling the sword and moving troops for weeks prior to invading Kuwait.

Bush, as President, made a judgment call: not to act. In doing so, he mistook intelligence from his agencies (satellite imagery) for disinformation (bluffing) and mistook misinformation from foreign sources (Shevardnadze, Mubarak) for intelligence.

The CIA and DIA had issued warning about the troop movements and build ups. Bush choose to "monitor"the situation and at the urging of the Joint Chiefs, ordered a carrier battle group to the gulf just before the invasion, They arrived 3 days later.

After the 9-11 attack, when it was apparent that the intelligence folks weren't kidding this time,the Bushies circled the wagons and "got their stories" coordinated.

Bad intell! was the battle cry..our "intell doesnt share information..blah blah blah" just like the findings about the Iraq Invasion of Kuwait during the  Bush I administration.

It is what it is...nothing more .

I'll leave you with one last point. Systems tend to fail from neglect or loss of focus rather than succeed. Homeland security prior to 9-11was joke. 9-11 is a shining example of multiple failures or neglect leading to catastrophic consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 06/09/2009 10:20:58 AM EST

Jet Fuel + fire + wind and combustible material = melted metal.

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 06/09/2009 10:33:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Everything from border security through flight school security and airport security to cockpit security failed, any one of which, if it had worked, could have prevented this catastrophe.

It's so easy to neglect those things, and we had every budgetary reason in the world to neglect them.

But if just one of those systems had been working, can you imagine how difficult it would have been to make it stop working?  It would have required years of planning and operations.  And to make all four systems fail?  That would require a mammoth effort over decades.

Ohmigod!  They're right!  It must have started just after Nixon was forced out!

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 05:03:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

http://www.democracynow.org /2006/9/11/exclusive_9_11_d ebate_loose_change

 

I don't know, the popular mechanics guys seem to make more sense.  That said, I'd still rather hear scientists debate this.

by katz on 06/09/2009 01:38:57 PM EST

Thanks a lot.

by Spencer on 06/09/2009 09:04:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The producers of Loose Change come off looking like hot-headed fools.  Besides, we've become all too familiar with the editing techniques they used in their film.

The Popular Mechanics editors made their case.  The kids look ignorant, at best, and like liars at worst.

Excellent video.  Three cheers for Popular Mechanics.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 05:42:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Something is wrong here, maybe other motives we don't understand, redirecting forces on 911 / 912 after all the warnings is really suspect.

But if all this was a government plot then did they just 'FORGET' to tie the whole thing into Iraq?

Really? They FORGOT the 'End-Goal' part of the plan?

First killing 3000 people and then after all that Cheney had to start the WMD bullshit, and the African Yellowcake bullshit as well to make it work. I think if you have a military plan on this scale you don't forget why you're doing it.

He knew what he wanted from day one but the incompitence of the bush administration letting 3000 people die that day was more of an oportunity they could use. (Im open minded on this, there is good argument that they let it go ahead but it's hard to believe they forgot why)

There are still a lot of questions to be answered but questioning is too easily being shut down with shouts of 'conspiricy nut', its not helping.

by Maverick on 06/09/2009 09:51:05 PM EST

Seems like we agree on this about 100%.

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2009 10:17:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I always enjoy watching liberals fight over 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's like dumb v. dumber.

But this quote drives a dagger into the heart of conspiracy nuts around the world.

"But if all this was a government plot then did they just 'FORGET' to tie the whole thing into Iraq? Really? They FORGOT the 'End-Goal' part of the plan?"

That's referred to as "logic" boys and girls.

If Cheney was going to invent 19 hijackers, wouldn't he simply make it 19 hijackers from Saddam's Republican Guard? Then we wouldn't have to go the the U.N., and waste a couple of years in Afghanistan, and make up stories about yellow cake.

We could simply kill Saddam and take his oil, all within a couple of weeks.

Next time a 9/11 conspiracy theorist shows up in this forum, just link this comment, and tell them to sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up.

by KenTX on 06/10/2009 06:54:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, before long they will be shooting up the Holocaust  Museum, murdering doctors or shooting cops...ooops sorry, those are you guys.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 06/10/2009 08:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
because Americans seemed to be gung-ho about going into iraq when the war started, even though there was definitive proof at the time that they weren't tied to al-qaida, nor had WMD's.  So, it doesn't really seem that the whole "9/11 iraq link" was really necessary to make this a "conspiracy".  Let's not forget, the whole theory isn't that the 19 hijackers didn't exist, it's that the higher ups knew about it, let it happen, and used it to pass sweeping legislation and start an unjust war.  There are definitely other logistacal questions that remain ambiguous, but nevertheless, the whole point about Richard Clark reinforces the fact that they KNEW about the imminent attack, and someone WAS taking it seriously.  The many people who still question the events of 9/11 aren't being done a service by people who say they KNOW what happened.  No one is disputing whether the planes hit the towers, or if there were even men with boxcutters:it's about what happened before, during, and after that raise all the questions, including building 7.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 12:08:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think people are forgetting that the Republicans had spent years propagandizing for a war.  And in the months leading up to the war, it was all WMD all the time.  Even though the inspectors were turning up nothing to support those claims and were, in fact, contradicting them, and even though Hussein was doing everything he could to satisfy us before the invasion, that information just wasn't getting through the haze of bullshit that the Bush administration was shoving in our faces.

Saddam was evil incarnate and we had to invade right now or face everlasting pain.

Republicans must never be given the reigns of power ever again.  A party that will lie at such great cost does not have the best interests of its country at heart.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:42:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand the questions posed by the various conspiracy theorists.  The questions are serious and needed to be asked.  But not over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

There are mountains of documents about, for instance, WTC7.  They're available for free on the web.  While a lot of people have attacked FEMA's report (with no real substance in those attacks other than the typical "well it must be true because what they said is a lie"), no one who doesn't want to be laughed out of town is attacking the NIST's report.

There were no explosives.  The collapse of WTC7 was a result of jet airplanes crashing high up in the towers.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:55:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
http://www.journalof911stud ies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVe rticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf

The guy references the NIST report, so it's not like he's avoiding it at all.  I am not pretending to have answers, I'm just not sure I buy all the official explanations.  You also have to remember the democrats at the time were WEAK, and complicit, so the farther we get away from the incident, the harder it is to challenge any aspect of the "conclusive" result without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.  To accept a conclusive result from any recent administration without question , including the Obama adminstration, would be folly.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 09:34:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But at some point you have to trust someone or you'll go nuts.  I trust the NIST.  I've relied on their work for years, and they've earned my trust.

You're talking about one guy versus thousands.  (Okay, sure, there's more than one guy who will take something out of context and claim that it says the opposite of what it does, but they're still a minority.)

The guy admits in his first paragraph that he's catering to people who don't care about calculations, can't do them, and aren't interested in them.  Then he admits that he's going to use less than rigorous methods to "prove" that explosives caused WTC7 to collapse.

He has found his niche of gullible people who are willing to let him make a living with this crap.  Some people will lend frauds like him credibility even when he tells you exactly how he's going to defraud you, and then he does it.  People have learned to not trust their government, leaving a gaping hole that snake-oil salesmen can fill.

But please trust the rigor.  Trust the peer reviews.  Thousands of qualified engineers and scientists have reviewed the NIST's report and find it credible, and none of them care what this Australian thinks.  If the NIST's report was not credible or had missed something important, there would be hell to pay from its constituents, and someone would get run out of town on a rail.

You just don't fuck with engineers.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:05:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't say I bought what that guy was selling either...My whole reasoning for questioning official "engineer" statements is because in the initial days following 9/11, legitimate engineers were coming out saying that the structural failures weren't possible, and then later "retracted" their statements.  It's not that I don't think the NIST is the most credible source on the subject, it's just at this point there are too many things that have happened to ignore, that's all I'm saying.  I won't go nuts because I don't obsess over it.  When the conversation comes up, I talk, but I'm never the one bringing it up.  I trust the NIST, I just don't trust Dick Cheney, or the CIA.  They have proven themselves to be liars.

Chris  

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 10:21:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"...in the initial days following 9/11..."

Personally, I was in shock for days afterwards.  I'm glad that I didn't have to make any decisions about national security at that time, or I might have used nuclear weapons.

And I agree: Dick Cheney is a lying sack of shit, and the CIA continues to disinform or misinform the American public to this day.  I mean, how many times are they going to change their story about what they told Pelosi?  It looks like they're conducting operations against their own country!

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:44:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm all in favor of following the evidence wherever it leads.  we should redouble our efforts to get at the truth because we've seen the kind of damage that can be done by incompetence.  but there are no trails leading to either active or passive conspiracies to support or permit the attacks.  sure, ask the questions that need to be asked.  but quit wasting our time saying "oh! looky here!  it has to be a conspiracy because i haven't seen all the evidence!"  if i hear one more person say "it must be a conspiracy because they haven't released all the evidence" i'm going to vomit on someone's shirt, and it won't be mine.  just the NIST's engineering reports about the collapse of the world trade center are almost three feet thick!

http://wtc.nist.gov/

would you like to guess how much evidence there is for bombs having been planted and set off in the buildings?  NONE.

if you collect all of the various reports from responsible investigating agencies, you'd need a new library.  the 9/11 Commission alone collected thousands of boxes of documents.  i'm sick of these people who keep saying there's no evidence when they just don't want to look at it.

that "loose change" film is the height of stupid.  those boys kept asking stupid questions like "where are the parts of the planes".   I'll tell you where they are: they were smashed to smithereens in crashes at 500 miles per hour you idiots!  and they've been collected and reassembled.  i'm sorry if no one found those microscopic pieces the day of the crashes.  that doesn't mean that they weren't there.

sure, i want people to keep asking the questions.  but they should quit wasting our time with these stupid conspiracy theories until they've got some honest answers.  so far, they've got nothing.

what i want to know is how we're going to make sure that the executives in charge don't ignore the warnings from people like Richard Clarke when those warnings are shoved in their faces. how could condoleeza rice say she doesn't know or doesn't remember such dire warnings?  why is dick fucking cheney saying that it's Richard Clarke's fault that we were unprepared even though Clarke tried to warn them more than once?

investigate that for me, please?

by parplights on 06/09/2009 11:29:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To my knowledge, the peak of Cenk's openmindedness about 9/11 happened a couple years ago when Jill was still on the show. I remember him being very intrigued with the collapse of Building 7 (if only temporarily so). I looked for a clip of Cenk and Jill talking about this, but couldn't find it. It may pre-date TYT's YouTube presence.

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2009 08:03:28 AM EST

I was so frustrated that Jesse didn't mention Building 7. Building 7 is the smoking gun. I'm a reasonable man. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief thru the entire sequence of events, no matter how coincidental and unlikely, until the collapse of Building 7. Why did Building 7 collapse? Why doesn't the 9/11 comission report even mention Building 7? I was sitting here saying "Come on Jesse, mention Building 7..." Argh!


by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 08:45:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]

 

NIST Final WTC 7 Investigation Report

http://www.nist.gov/public_ affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_11 20_wtc7.htm

The report is only 130 pages, but you only have to read 73 pages.  If you want to examine all of the related documents, you can forget about the next month.

by parplights on 06/10/2009 03:08:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You want a "full by the books investigation", but haven't you heard?  We're supposed to let bygones be bygones and look forward.

I do find it hard to swallow this conspiracy stuff, though.  Sure, I think Dick Cheney is a really bad guy.  Every time he opens his self-serving mouth he lies.  Maybe he's even Satan Incarnate.  But Rumsfeld?  Sure, he's an arrogant bastard.  Yes, he's lied and manipulated and tortured.  But would he be willing to kill 3000 of his countrymen?  I just can't bring myself to believe that about even him.

And I can't help but think the operation would have to be more complicated than what you described.  A lot of people actually would be involved in carrying it out.  And even if they couldn't see the whole picture, it would have to raise alarms in their minds even if they could see only pieces of it.

A lot of people high up in the administration would have to be Disciples of Satan.  But even before 9/11, there was a lot of infighting going on, and the power struggles would not permit keeping such a thing secret for very long.  Despite what people think, we're lousy at keeping secrets when they're big enough.

To tell you the truth, the fact that there are so many consiracy theorists hounding this subject is evidence to me that American involvement in 9/11 is, as the Commission has hinted, limited to incompetence.

by AnEngineer on 06/08/2009 10:52:13 PM EST

Hartmann is more receptive to the idea than Cenk is, but he made a good point the other week.

Paraphrase: If it was an inside job, wouldn't it have made a million times more sense to just blow up a building and not complicate things insanely with planes and so many variables?

Think about it, instead of scaring people out of flying, anyone working in a building would've been/would be terrified. It's much simpler and makes a hell of a lot more sense if the goal is to scare people to grab power and oil, start wars, make money, etc.

by ihavenobias on 06/08/2009 11:24:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Paraphrase: If it was an inside job, wouldn't it have made a million times more sense to just blow up a building and not complicate things insanely with planes and so many variables?"

Is the concept Cheney simply took advantage of learning of an EXISTING plan by Al Qaida and then arranged for a few orders to be issued that would smooth the way for it to succeed beyond your comprehension?

by spigzone on 06/08/2009 11:49:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Is the concept of turning people off with condescending phrasing beyond your comprehension?

;)

And no, the evil conspiracy is not the simplest explanation.

by ihavenobias on 06/08/2009 11:54:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Is the concept of turning people off with condescending phrasing beyond your comprehension?
;)

And no, the evil conspiracy is not the simplest explanation." 

What the fuck IS it with people? I suggested applying occams razor to the conspiracy theories. It's not necessary for Cheney or whomever to have been part of PLANNING the attack, just to take advantage of it. Since the DIA task force definitely EXISTED and if it found out about the 9-11 plot that information would have went straight to Cheney, who would immediately KINOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT, AND since ALL the material of that task force was subsequently destroyed utterly contrary to all procedure or anything remotely resembling common sense, occams razor says, IF there was a conspiracy, cheney finding out about the 9-11 plot and arranging to help it succeed to create a 'shock' doctrine situation is by far the likliest scenario. 

YOUR response to my mention of occams razor in this contect was ...  

"a little occams razor here please. (none / 1)

"Paraphrase: If it was an inside job, wouldn't it have made a million times more sense to just blow up a building and not complicate things insanely with planes and so many variables?

Think about it, instead of scaring people out of flying, anyone working in a building would've been/would be terrified. It's much simpler and makes a hell of a lot more sense if the goal is to scare people to grab power and oil, start wars, make money, etc."

WTF?

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 01:19:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The more plausible/simpler explanation is that they took advantage of 9/11 after it happened. They took a terrible event and used it to push various agendas (some of which they had planned from the start, like invading Iraq), much to the detriment of our country.

Cheney was made head of the counter terrorism task force in January of 2001, but he didn't even hold a meeting until Sept. 4th of that year. You can argue that meeting was about 9/11, but I think these factoids just add to image of incompetence.

Not that they were completely incompetent, don't get me wrong. But in some ways they clearly were.

by ihavenobias on 06/09/2009 01:29:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The mother of all conspiracy theories was ultimately debunked when it was revealed that Oswald got his job at the Texas Book Depoitory by pure random happenstance, and the assistance of a family friend.

He wasn't pursuing the job. Somebody brought it to him.

A few weeks later, the Dallas Morning News reported plans for a presidential motorcade.

Random poo poo occurs.

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 09:38:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Random poo poo" is funny. It's almost a band name.

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2009 10:23:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

What does it matter how he got the job?   If his job was conveniently located someone could have taken advantage of that simple fact.

That being said, I do think it was Oswald's rifle that did the shooting, although I'm not totally convinced he was the trigger man.   It wouldn't have been that hard for someone to show up, use his rifle, and then slip out the building without being seen.  It's possible he knew something was going to happen and someone was going to try to kill Kennedy but didn't realize he was being set up as the fall guy.   He did say that he was only a "patsy" after they arrested him.

by bfaul on 06/09/2009 05:45:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See the documentary. You can buy it from PBS, or I think you can watch it here if you install video compass.

Norman Mailer did a superb job of getting down to the essence of Oswald.  He had the means, motivation, and opportunity, and he was simply a crazed opportunist.

He used the same gun to attempt assassination of Edwin Walker a few months earlier.

He was a USMC trained marksman, shooting at people randomly, without rationale.

A family friend found him the job at the Book Depository, and the motorcade just happened to roll under his window.

The simplest explanation eventually prevails.

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 07:01:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"And the thousands of FBI and ATF agents who are still investigating as well as the indictment, trial and conviction of Mohammad al-Qahtani the "20th hijacker" - that just didn't happen?"

http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2 009/01/13/AR2009011303372.h tml

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution. "

apparently not.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 01:46:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You responded to the wrong comment.

by ihavenobias on 06/09/2009 01:50:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
right you are.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 01:59:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well you certainly went rude early.

The falicy in your position is you make a lot of assumptions without a lot of factual basis.

"suddenly a plethora of exercises were ordered to take place on 9-11 and 9-12"
 
Not true. Feel free to elaborate more on what you mean. Bear in mind such things take logistical planning (e.g. fuel purchases, funds allocation, travel orders, etc...) issued months in advance. You don't have every "I" dotted and "T" crossed, you don't get to do what you planed.

"It only takes ONE person at the top to set such plans into motion. No one else needs to know."
 
When one person gives an order, everyone in the chain of command beneath him receives the documented order. Simple to find out the source, just follow up the chain. Orders don't appear out of thin air.

"And the  military, even more than the Bushco bureaucracy, CARRIES OUT ORDERS WITHOUT QUESTION."

And they document them as well as plan them months in advance. The "sudden" exercises on 9/11 would have been planned for months, possibly years. Most military exercises are annual events, occurring at the same time and place each year.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/09/2009 12:07:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"When one person gives an order, everyone in the chain of command beneath him receives the documented order. Simple to find out the source, just follow up the chain. Orders don't appear out of thin air"

The 9-11 commission tried and failed to find out the origin and timeline of the orders persuant to the various military exercises that occurred on 9-11 that so confused the situation. Documented doesn't mean shit if that documentation is unreachable.

As with the most of your responses, this was moronically shallow, ignorant and thoughtlessly off the cuff.

You are the Heidi Montag of the Young Turks Blogs.



by spigzone on 06/09/2009 01:00:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]

"As with the most of your responses, this was moronically shallow, ignorant and thoughtlessly off the cuff."

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they become so dear to the people that believe them.  You clearly have an emotional investment in believing this one.

by bfaul on 06/09/2009 05:56:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"The problem with conspiracy theories is that they become so dear to the people that believe them.  You clearly have an emotional investment in believing this one."

Oswald was a lone nut.

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 07:02:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oswald was a lone nut.

...Until he moved to Texas, that is. Then he was just one of many "lone nuts."

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2009 08:37:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So rather than carry on a reasonable (even rational) discussion, you continue to sling insults?

Please feel free to grow up a little.

"The 9-11 commission tried and failed to find out the origin and timeline of the orders persuant to the various military exercises that occurred on 9-11 that so confused the situation. Documented doesn't mean shit if that documentation is unreachable."

OK, feel free to provide examples of your claim. What mysterious "exercises" are you going on about and what significance is there to them having occurred? Extra credit if you can explain how these exercises "so confused the situation".

Extra, extra credit points if you can do so without insults or profanity.

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/10/2009 01:25:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rosie O’Donnell issued this statement regarding the collapse of the Bay Bridge in Oakland.

“I do believe that it’s the second time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that the Bay Bridge, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a bridge to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. There was a truck involved in a crash and, miraculously, for the second time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

rosie is fat

rosie is stupid
rosie is a liberal
rosie is a democrat 

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 09:52:37 AM EST

Don't be as stupid as Rosie.

Buy a physics textbook.

Now.

Please.

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 09:58:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me know if you deep-thinking scientists and engineers need some more assistance. Help is on the way.

by KenTX on 06/09/2009 09:55:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Where Cenk goes wrong is in not having the curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour and watch "loose change". Cenk's opinion on one of the most significant events in American history? "I officially have no opinion on 9/11." Fantastic.

My friend Kirk refuses to watch any of the "9/11 truth" videos; says that he's afraid of what he'll learn and would rather not know. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying....

by fgoyeau on 06/08/2009 10:56:19 PM EST

"Where Cenk goes wrong is in not having the curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour and watch "loose change".

Should Cenk have the "curriosity, honesty and courage to sit his ass down for an hour" and watch them as well?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/09/2009 12:17:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As humans with intelligence, we should always be open to scientifically presented evidence, even if it should contradict our very views of the world.

The "Flat Earth Theory" might be a bad example, because I'm assuming that would be more based on faith. Faith, by definition, is believing something without the need for evidence. I'm against this, and other such faith-based arguments.

However, if a scientist were to present "fringe" evidence (let me exaggerate, SCIENTIFIC evidence) that suggested that the US water supply causes AIDS, should we ignore him? He might be proven dead wrong, through investigation and debate.

But if he's presenting scientific evidence, we have a responsibility to consider it. To not do so is to act like you have a preset definition of the way the world is, and refuse to change it.

I will stress that some 9/11 conspiracy theories suggest a "lack of an explanation" is an explanation. These should be ignored. However, if there is legitimate, private investigations, people explaining architectural design and the science behind steel melting, I do have a responsibility to sit my ass down and watch it.

The only alternative in this case, is believe it was evil, evil terrorists. Of course, the details behind NIST's investigations are a matter of national security and can't be disclosed. We just have to believe it without evidence. Faith.

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 12:54:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll listen to "fringe" scientific evidence if I have some spare time (rarely) and it's the only entertainment available.  But I much prefer peer-reviewed scientific evidence.  Sometimes the heavy-weight scientists who poo-poo a particular idea are wrong, but that is an extremely rare occurrence, and the proofs always hinge on newly-discovered evidence that dominates the headlines.

Unless I'm mistaken, there have been no explosive headlines about new evidence linking Cheney to 9/11.

In this case, I see no probable cause to think that there is anything interesting behind any of these mis-identified "theories".  They are not theories.  They are unwarranted conjecture lacking sufficient evidence to peak my interest.

Bring me a memo and an on-site witness, both of which offer direct evidence that Cheney or someone else is guilty of murder.  Until then, I'll be busy doing other things.

It will be much easier to find him culpable in the murders of the prisoners whom we tortured to death.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:42:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Headlines, that is. Not here, though, in America. Why? Well, that's kinda easy. It's considered unpatriotic and unacceptable.

David Ray Griffin, a leading author and investigator for alternate theories, was asked to come on a program, then was told "It is wrong, blasphemous and sinful to assume or lead others to assume that the US government killed 3000 of it's own citizens. Because it didn't." by a reporter, before he could even present any evidence whatsoever.

Blasphemous. That's a strong word, apparently asking questions about America's motives is also questioning God.

As for around the world, it's actually WELL accepted that 9/11 at least warrants a non-government, independent investigation, and that is what I'm for, as well. I'm generally opposed to pointing the blame at someone prematurely, which is where many 9/11 theorists go wrong. Like Ventura said, simply ask questions. CONSTANTLY. Never accept anything at face value.

As far as current events, even 8 years later, it is still being talked about. About 4 weeks ago, an Icelandic scientist claimed to have discovered undetonated thermite (a steel-melting explosive) that came from the ruins of 9/11. Whether or not he's telling the truth is one thing, but it goes to show you that, outside of America, people are thinking critically about what may or may not have happened even to this day.

The main thing is... they won't teach you this in school. They won't print it in the news, or show TV specials about it. (Also, this refers to America, there are plenty of news articles and TV specials covering 9/11 in other countries.) You have to put in a little effort, and this may make you feel like some cliche, basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist. There's simply no alternative when something is so incredibly taboo to talk about, though.

I will say this, though. Just because a subject does or doesn't make headlines is absolutely not a measure of it's credibility.

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 05:18:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I do want a much better investigation than the partisan and incomplete B.S. that we were fed by the 9/11 Commission.  It's sad that Obama is so busy burying the past.  We'll probably never have a good investigation.

But about the "undetonated thermite" that you mentioned:

Those were two huge buildings with a lot of people doing a lot of different things in them.  I believe there were also a lot of security personnel as well as laboratories of various sorts in those buildings.

Is there any reason to believe that the thermite didn't belong there?  You did say that it was UN-detonated.  If there had been traces of DETONATED thermite, then we'd be talking.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 05:42:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually, detonated thermite remains is somewhat old news. Traces of it have been found in the clouds of dust that covered the city after 9/11, and has been cited as evidence of explosives, a "smoking gun", if you will. However...

These glowing, molten pools, cited as evidence of melted steel, and even chemicals directly caused by thermite, have been challenged by skeptics as being melted remains of office furniture, rugs, things that are typically found in a office skyscraper, and that, melted, some architecture can produce the chemicals that are found in thermite dust.

This is why unreacted thermite is a big deal. It adds credibility to the theory that the molten pools of metal found at the base of each tower was likely caused by properly detonated thermite. ...And the obvious question of... "Why would they be storing demolition explosives in the Trade Center?"

...Actually, I'm really bad at explaining things, I'm not a scientist. I could go on and on, but I have no credibility whatsoever, I just picked this information up with a little curiosity. Like I said, even opposing views such as mine should be questioned and scrutinized just as much as the government's.

What I really don't like is people saying "You have not sufficiently proven your case, therefore it is terrorists." No. For both the government's version of 9/11, and the alternative theories, you must start at "not guilty" and work your case. It shouldn't be "You have to prove to me terrorists are not guilty," because, well, that's not how our justice system works. You have to prove that they are guilty.

ANYWAYS, while I'm not staking my entire viewpoint on this one scientist, since you did show a little interest in the thermite, the interview can be found here. It is in Danish, with subtitles.
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=8_tf25lx_3o

by Dradeeus on 06/09/2009 06:19:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Traces of (thermite) have been found in the clouds of dust that covered the city after 9/11"

Given that thermite is iron oxide (rust) and aluminum, yes, it is not surprising those substances would be found in the atmosphere following the colapse of the WTC.

"molten pools of metal found at the base of each tower"

This, as well as the "thermite" blather are meaningless. Please, tell us what the significance of "thermite" means to you (as opposed to any other explosive substance, e.g. RDX, C4, etc...) and what conclusions you draw from "molten pools of metal" following a skyscraper fire?

"People who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them." LL

by Robrob on 06/10/2009 01:18:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I could not have stated it more clearly than you did: At this point you have to prove to me that the terrorists are not guilty.  I can't imagine any other reasonable position.

They took boxcutters on the planes.  They killed the pilots.  They piloted the planes into the buildings.  All of the evidence points that way and there is no contrary evidence.

Can you make an offer of proof that that isn't true? Or can we safely leave this subject behind until there is at least SOME actual evidence contradicting their guilt?

Beyond that, I have nothing more to say on this subject, and I can't spend any more time on useless, baseless conjecture.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 07:31:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!

That was weak sauce from Cenk, sorry, love ya' but its true.

I loved that Ventura gave Cenk a hard time (not too many guests are good enough to lay the smack down on Cenk). The best part was when Cenk was saying how improbable it would be for a bunch of people higher up to create 911 and Ventura said something like "you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!" When you think about it like that then yeah, I guess anything is possible.

I think a lot of people are just turned off by the "conspiracy" crap and blow it off as crazy stuff, all I'm saying is give it a chance.

Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 01:44:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Occam's Razor demands simplicity.

"...you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!"

Yes.

The plan was elegant and simple.  It did require preparation, including gathering identifications and passports, and learning the basics of flying a large aircraft (but not how to take off or land).  They needed enough money for flight school, travel, and living expenses.  And box cutters.

It was simple, do-able, and they did it.

All I'm asking for is some credible evidence for a broader conspiracy reaching into the White House or (name your agency here).

With all of the backstabbing going on by members of the previous administration and the Republican Party in general, if there was any such evidence, I think it would have come out by now even if it didn't during the 9/11 Commission's investigation.  But the only people who are talking are people whose sole occupation is selling their hollow books (see Alan Miller's comment below), and no one is vouching for them.

Besides, why hasn't Richard Clarke talked about any of this?  If there was anyone credible who could have direct knowledge of such a conspiracy as well as a motive for exposing it, wouldn't it be him?  Or is he "in" on the conspiracy?

And yes, before you hang me for it, I admit that is another "lack of evidence" argument just like so many of the conspiracy theories.  But the positivists always bear the burden of proof, and lack of evidence is sufficient grounds for dismissal, not acceptance.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:38:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
are you serious?  The whole reason there are still 9/11 conspiracy theorists is because the physical evidence at the scene points contrary to what the story says.  Obviously you are a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.  Loose change was not done by a nutjob...who says it wasn't done by someone in the government.  If someone came out within the government with "evidence" that 9/11 was a conspiracy set up by the government, you don't think that person would be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life?  I mean, shit, if the conspiracy is true, and the goverment killed 3,000 Americans, you think one more would be a hard decision?  I just think it's odd that people who are discrediting the conspiracy theory based on a "lack of evidence" must ignore some things that are scientifically proveable, such as the metling point of steel vs. the peak burning temperatures of the reported fuels on site.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 12:04:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 04:33:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yarasi olan gocunur

"he who bears the wound takes offense.

Nice rating our comment AnEngineer, it says a lot;)

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
this is what I was talking about earlier, some people also don't really know what is scientific fact and evidence vs speculation (which is sad). Like the boiling point of water at sea level or the melting point of steel. These are undisputable facts. Whereas things such as "I survived a car crash and that must be a miracle from God" are not fact and cannot be proven.

Common sense, isn't actually all that common.

This dude is my fav pseudo-scientist who thinks he understands facts and science:

wadda genius. I'll bet he can explain 911 and dispute Loose Change point by point with his flawless logic.

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:33:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up. Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up."

I agree completely.

Listening to that exchange bought to mind watching Charlie Rose who, when he interviewed Naomi Klien on her book 'The Shock Doctrine',  got really defensive and kept interupting her, I mean A LOT, like I've never seen him do before, and trying to shoot down what she was saying. Very revealing of where Rose's head is really at. Worth watching if you can dig it up.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 02:12:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I've seen the interview, Charlie wouldn't even use the word torture he kept refering to it as 'enhanced interrogation'. Cenk, you have an internet show you don't have to play the mainstream game. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a taboo subject in the mainstream media and you're playing thier game by favouring the official story without taking the time to see the arguements presented in 'fringe, conspiracy nutjob movies'.

And you can't find this conspirarcy too unthinkable because of the humanity of the people at the top. That thay couldn't kill that many of their citizens. Do they care about the 4000 Americans that died in Iraq? That's about the same number that died in 9/11. If they don't care enough to send them to die in a for-profit war, then is it really that improbable that they staged the event killing about the same number of citezens that would necissitate public support for the war?

by Tansul on 06/09/2009 06:08:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!
That was weak sauce from Cenk.

EXACTLY




by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 08:50:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think one of the problems many people have with critical thinking, alternative scenarios, and the like, is how much would change if it were generally accepted that airplanes alone didn't bring down two towers the same way. Almost too much would change at once. It's certainly very scary.

I mean, as a citizen you can go back through years of news and pick out every time they've went with the assumption it was terrorists trying to kill us, with no motive other than being evil, and think of an alternate explanation for every action the government took against terrorism.

My biggest fear, is that if it IS one day, generally accepted in America, as it is many other countries, is that we go through the ultimate case of denial. It's hard to explain, but I almost picture it like...

"You don't understand, it HAD to be terrorists."
"But, all the evidence..."
"No, no. You aren't listening to me. Terrorists HAD to have done it. If it was the government, it would cause so much backtracking we'd have to evaluate the entire history of United States differently. If they lied to us about this, what else have they lied to us about? It has to be simple. It has to go down in history as terrorists."

by Dradeeus on 06/08/2009 11:56:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Too much would change at once. It's very scary."

You know how, when talking about evolution, religion, sex ed, gay rights, etc, Cenk likes to say about the conservatives "You can't handle the truth"?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 09:04:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”

More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. Veterans from the National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, FAA, U.S. State Department and U.S. Military Intelligence are quoted.
http://patriotsquestion911. com/#Articles

by Alan Miller on 06/09/2009 01:28:06 AM EST

Okay, let's start with Terrell E. Arnold.

He is described as the "Former Deputy Director of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning" who complains that

"Washington leadership keeps the American people fixated on the events of 9/11. They have brought us no closer than we were on September 12, 2001, to resolving how it was executed and by what enemy. They tell us repeatedly that it was the work of al Qaida, but they have yet to show us the proofs."

As the former Deputy Director of Counter Terrorism and Emergency Planning for the US State Dept., wouldn't he be "they"?

He is another author who also is trying to sell his books.  I can't find independent and respected authorities who will vouch for either of you.

Both of you are trying to make your living off of this conspiracy stuff.  Does anyone of consequence listen to you?  Are there any well-known and respected authorities who can vouch for either of you?

Also, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the fringe, you shouldn't link to a web site named "Patriot something-or-other", supposedly describing you and implying that you care more about your country than anyone else.  When I see the word "patriot" in the title of something, I immediately check make sure my wallet is still in my pocket and that some "patriot" isn't trying to take my rights away.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 01:57:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I would love to hear a young turks episode on this where people from both sides are interviewed.  I'd love to hear Cenk interview some of the scientists who  think that it was impossible for the planes to bring down the buildings as well as the scientists who disagree with them. 

Sometimes I wonder if 24 got it right.  Maybe it was the defense contractors ;-).

by katz on 06/09/2009 12:15:07 AM EST

Replace 9/11 with Free Trade and scientists with economists and I agree completely.

by ihavenobias on 06/09/2009 12:20:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I like it! Come on Cenk! Accept or reject the official story, but at least know what you're talking about!

by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 09:09:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: