Thursday, January 31, 2008

Michael Shermer strikes back!

Michael Shermer wrote a column for the Huffingtonpost yesterday where he describes his encounters with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement while on his book tour. The name of the article is, "9/11 'Truthers' a Pack of Liars". Then at the end of the article he attempts to compare us to the Holocaust denial movement. Since he calls us a "pack of liars", it would be helpful if he would actually mention some of the lies we routinely make. This he did not do. He details his conversation with a Truther,

"There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since 9/11."
"How do you know?" I inquired.
"Because of all the unexplained anomalies surrounding 9/11," he answered.
"Such as?"
"Such as the fact that steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers."


Shermer goes on to state, "At this point I ended the conversation and declined to be interviewed, knowing precisely where the dialogue was going next--if I cannot explain every single minutia about the events of that fateful... day...that lack of knowledge, in his mind at least, equates to direct proof that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the CIA."

Maybe Shermer decided to the end conversation, because he knows very few facts regarding the events of that day. Why does Michael Shermer consider the destruction of 3 buildings, to be a "minutia" of the events that day? The government's theory is that two jetliners caused three buildings to be destroyed that day, and other buildings to be significantly damaged. This is not "minutia", this is the government's whole case. If they can't prove this, their whole theory and explanation for what happened that day falls apart. NIST(The National Institute of Standards and Technology) was tasked with investigating and explaining the collapse of WTC1,2 and 7. They released their final report on Towers 1 and 2 in October 2005. However, they only carry their analysis until the point of collapse initiation. They also stated in a response to a Request for Correction that they were, "...unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." They have yet to release their report on WTC7.

Michael Shermer stated at the end of his column, "No holes, no Holocaust. No melted steel, no Al-Qaeda attack. " This is a bad analogy. We aren't denying that people were killed, only how it happened. The government has yet to provide answers.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Lies, Lies and More Lies.

A study was released this past week by two non-profit journalism organizations, the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism, which detailed the number of false claims made by top administration officials during the run-up to the war in Iraq. This study showed that,

"The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion."

This shows that the false statements were clearly a propaganda technique used by the administration to drum up support for the war. The study found that,

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

It is important to show the most egregious claims made by members of this administration and how the evidence at the time contradicted their statements.

Dick Cheney stated on August 26, 2002,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

However, in September of 2002 the DIA, the intelligence branch of the DOD stated, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Right before the invasion of Iraq on March 17, 2003 Bush stated,

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A United Nations Document states, "Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team."

The most famous false statement was made during the State of the Union Address in January of 2003 in which Bush stated the following,

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The idea that Saddam was shopping for uranium in Niger came from a collection of documents now known to have been forged. Many people within the intelligence community did not believe these claims at the time. Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, John E. McLaughlin, stated this in Oct of 2002 regarding the uranium issue,

"The one thing where I think they(British) stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible."

Bush was also warned by the CIA not to include the uranium claim in a speech he gave in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002. The memo sent by the CIA reads, "More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa...The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities..."

This, however, is the speech where Bush states,

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

No one within the administration has been formally held accountable for the lies, distortions, propaganda, and fear mongering that led to our War in Iraq.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The Ground Zeros

I had the misfortune today of watching a video made by Mark Roberts, a man who attempts to "debunk" all the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The 52 minute video is certainly not entertaining, but I thought I would watch it nevertheless and write some of my observations.

Mark Roberts is obviously not being paid by any nefarious part of the US government to promote the 9/11 lie. He is merely a useful idiot who is regurgitating government propaganda.
Mark Roberts asked Les Jamison what law was violated by the removal and recycling of large amounts of steel from the towers. Is Mark Roberts saying that it is not illegal to destroy crime scene evidence?

Bill Manning wrote in his article "$elling out the Investigation"

"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

Rep. Joseph Crowley(D) called the destruction of evidence, "borderline criminal."

If an individual tampers with evidence it is usually considered to be a felony.

Regardless, of the legalities of the issue, someone who is not concerned about the destruction of evidence in a crime that killed almost 3,000 people is a contemptible human being.

Later in the show Mark Roberts asked a lady what were the reasons that NIST gives for the collapse of the towers. She stated, "they claim that the twin towers pancaked."

It is true that NIST does not specifically state that the towers pancaked. However, it is easy to see how one might have come to that conclusion. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics,

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor PANCAKING that leads to that perception."

Mark Roberts states on his debunking page that 9/11Myths is, "The best all-around site on the internet for examination of 9/11 conspiracist claims."

Mike Williams, the author of the site, states regarding the collapse of the towers, "A PANCAKE-STYLE collapse isn’t quite as rare as some sites want to portray."

Why isn't Mark Roberts interested in correcting the Popular Mechanics piece, or 911Myths?

Because he isn't interested in the truth. He is interested in ideological conformity to the government's position. As long as someone believes the government's story, then they can believe whatever they wish about the collapse of the towers. If someone strays from this position then he is interested in attacking them. Mark Roberts is good at repeating government propaganda, "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

In summation, Mark Roberts is a useful idiot.