Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Edwards admits to extramarital affair
'I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26095810?GT1=43001
WASHINGTON - Former U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards, who won nationwide praise and sympathy as he campaigned side-by-side with his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, admitted in shame Friday he had had an extramarital affair with a woman who produced videos for his campaign.
Acknowledging a sex scandal he had dismissed as "tabloid trash" only last month, Edwards said he had told his wife and family long ago but "I had hoped that it would never become public."
He denied fathering a daughter, born to the woman with whom he had the affair, and offered to be tested to prove it. A former Edwards campaign staff member professes to be the father. The former North Carolina senator, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, confessed to ABC News that he had lied repeatedly about the affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter. Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born on Feb. 27 this year, and no father's name is given on the birth certificate filed in California.
'Disloyal to my family'
After the story broke Friday, Edwards released a statement that said, "In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake, and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public."
"With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006, and today I take full responsibility publicly."
Edwards declared his presidential candidacy in December 2006. His wife was at his side that day and campaigned enthusiastically with him and by herself in the months that followed. She announced in March 2007 that her cancer, formerly in remission, had returned and there apparently was no cure.
She and her husband said it was important for the campaign to continue.
Edwards dropped out midway through this year's primaries after it became apparent he could not keep up with front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He recently endorsed Obama and has been mentioned as a possible running mate.
He was John Kerry's running mate in 2004 when Kerry lost to President George W. Bush. In his statement, he said, "It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry.
"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help."
The National Enquirer first reported on the affair in October 2007, in the run-up to the Democratic primaries, and Edwards denied it.
"The story is false," he told reporters then. "It's completely untrue, ridiculous." He professed his love for his wife, who had an incurable form of cancer, saying, "I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years and as anybody who's been around us knows, she's an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known. So the story's just false."
Last month, the Enquirer carried another story stating that its reporters had accosted Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel where he had met with Hunter after her child's birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash," but he generally avoided reporters' inquiries, as did his former top aides.
Tabloid was correct
Steve Marcus / Reuters
Former Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview, scheduled to air on ABC News' "Nightline" Friday night, Edwards said the tabloid was correct when it reported on his meeting with Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
A number of mainstream news organizations had looked into the adultery allegations but had not published or aired stories. But newspapers in Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina , recounted the Enquirer's allegations in prominent articles on Thursday.
The Edwardses have three children — Cate, Jack and Emma Claire. Another son, Wade, died at 16 in a 1996 car accident.
David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, said he was disappointed and angry at Friday's news.
"Thousands of friends of the senator's and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him, and he's let them down," said Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan. "They've been betrayed by his action."
Asked whether the affair would damage Edwards' future aspirations in public service, Bonior replied: "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."
In 1999, when Edwards was a senator, he said of President Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky:
Slide show
Edwards' public life
Former Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
more photos
"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
In 2006, Edwards' political action committee paid $100,000 in a four-month span to a newly-formed firm run by Hunter, who directed the production of four Web videos showing Edwards in supposedly candid moments as well as in a public speech talking about morality.
The payments from Edwards' One America Committee to Midline Groove Productions LLC started on July 5, 2006, five days after Hunter incorporated the firm in Delaware.
Midline provided "Website/Internet services," according to reports that Edwards' PAC filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Midline's work product consists of four YouTube videos showing Edwards in informal settings as he prepares to make speeches in Storm Lake, Iowa, and Pittsburgh, as gets ready for a television appearance on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and travels in Uganda in 2006.
Edwards' PAC followed the six-figure payment with two smaller payments totaling $14,461, the last on April 1, 2007.
At the time Hunter was compiling the videos in 2006, Edwards was preparing his run for president.
Episode One of the four videos shows a conversation between Edwards and an unseen woman as the two chat aboard a plane about an upcoming speech in Storm Lake, Iowa.
Cutting between clips of the speech and the conversation with the woman, Edwards touches on his standard political themes, declaring that government must do a better job of addressing the great issues of the day, from poverty and education to jobs and the war in Iraq.
"I want to see our party lead on the great moral issues — yes, me a Democrat using that word — the great moral issues that face our country," Edwards tells the crowd. "If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to do it."
Last month, the Enquirer carried another story stating that its reporters had accosted Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel where he had met with Hunter after her child's birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash," but he generally avoided reporters' inquiries, as did his former top aides.
Tabloid was correct
Steve Marcus / Reuters
Former Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview, scheduled to air on ABC News' "Nightline" Friday night, Edwards said the tabloid was correct when it reported on his meeting with Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
A number of mainstream news organizations had looked into the adultery allegations but had not published or aired stories. But newspapers in Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina , recounted the Enquirer's allegations in prominent articles on Thursday.
The Edwardses have three children — Cate, Jack and Emma Claire. Another son, Wade, died at 16 in a 1996 car accident.
David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, said he was disappointed and angry at Friday's news.
"Thousands of friends of the senator's and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him, and he's let them down," said Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan. "They've been betrayed by his action."
Asked whether the affair would damage Edwards' future aspirations in public service, Bonior replied: "You can't lie in politics and expect to have people's confidence."
In 1999, when Edwards was a senator, he said of President Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky:
Slide show
Edwards' public life
Former Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
more photos
"I think this president has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."
In 2006, Edwards' political action committee paid $100,000 in a four-month span to a newly-formed firm run by Hunter, who directed the production of four Web videos showing Edwards in supposedly candid moments as well as in a public speech talking about morality.
The payments from Edwards' One America Committee to Midline Groove Productions LLC started on July 5, 2006, five days after Hunter incorporated the firm in Delaware.
Midline provided "Website/Internet services," according to reports that Edwards' PAC filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Midline's work product consists of four YouTube videos showing Edwards in informal settings as he prepares to make speeches in Storm Lake, Iowa, and Pittsburgh, as gets ready for a television appearance on "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and travels in Uganda in 2006.
Edwards' PAC followed the six-figure payment with two smaller payments totaling $14,461, the last on April 1, 2007.
At the time Hunter was compiling the videos in 2006, Edwards was preparing his run for president.
Episode One of the four videos shows a conversation between Edwards and an unseen woman as the two chat aboard a plane about an upcoming speech in Storm Lake, Iowa.
Cutting between clips of the speech and the conversation with the woman, Edwards touches on his standard political themes, declaring that government must do a better job of addressing the great issues of the day, from poverty and education to jobs and the war in Iraq.
"I want to see our party lead on the great moral issues — yes, me a Democrat using that word — the great moral issues that face our country," Edwards tells the crowd. "If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to do it."
Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all!
Just ask Britney Spears!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=entertainment&id=5042740
does one know the difference between?
dejure and defacto..
everything one speaks of is in the defacto realm..
everything..
one can only "change the constitution"
in the defacto realm
i stand for our god given dejure..
in which the lights are on
but no one is home..
what that means in simple terms
one has to understand on one's own
not only what that means
but how to apply it..
it works
i know
What is a right and what is a priviledge in your book? - Adjure
Is modern conveniences a right or a priviledge?
What about air travel?
What about air conditioning? Are you guaranteed a right to have A/C? What if terrorists blow up the energy infrastructure? Who will you protest?
Some liberals think they have the right to protest nude in front of children.
I believe liberals believe that everything is a right, that's why liberals will perpetually whine about everything. It's the entitlement, spoiled, ingrate mentality. We have rights; however, we have many priviledges. I have the right to own propery, I have the right to free speech. People also have the right to disagree and even hate things. Liberals want to be the thought police while they hate anything that disagrees with them. It's a hypocritical, tyranical movement.
As I said earlier, you are nothing more than a tool for the secular movement.
which law is one ruled by?
dejure or defacto?
I'm for the rule of law
not chaos which liberals prefer. This idea of "breathing and living constition" is the road in which liberals will bring their tyrany on the American people. "Living and breathing document" is a term that was coined by liberals that would all them to change the constitution in a Politically Correct - perverted way as they see fit.
Liberals are bringing us the thought police. People can't even denounce homosexuality! However, heterosexuality can come under attack whenever... Why don't explain that over on the Bible board! You claim to be a christian, and your persecuting christian principles. Liberals would shut anyone that preaches against sin, as it would offend someone. Liberal "christians" would offend God rather than man.
And this little Stalinistkidd that you're posting with, do you realize that he thinks you're a nut? You're nothing but a tool for the secular movement.
does one even know?
what our law is?
we have two separate laws running concurrently with one another
which one are you a party to?
hint..dejure or defecto..
you should understand your own
before bringing other systems into play..
interesting how one choses to showcase islamic law..
what's that all about?
If you hate your government,
why don't you gleafully trot yourself over to the governments run by Sharia law? You seem to trust them more than your own. Pathetic! Under the US government and our law, you have the right to free speech. It seems all you want to do is bash a government whose people are free while giving credence to tyranical regimes.
I'm not surprised that this comes from whiny liberals that then say that Bush is taking away their "rights". Maybe this is why you liberals love Stalin so much?
There's A Place In The World For A Gambler
http://www.drummerandmissy.com/nrd/Dan%20Fogelberg%20-%20Theres%20a%20Place%20in%20the%20World%20for...
thought it flowed well..
time will tell..won't it..
In May 2006, I invited the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists to defend their findings against the aforementioned debate team. To date, they all refuse to debate!
debunking must be different than debating..
from a government sponsored site
of course!!
whatever you coin yourself
one does not ever answer any of the questions i have posed to you..
what's with that?
would it be considered whining as well?
Which conspiracy will you want them to debunk?
A few hundred-thousand? The answers are quite thorough where as many of the conpiracy theories are inane, shallow, and quickly made up. Answers and refutation require more time and research than making up a dumb, unscientific theory. In fact, the demolition theory is inane.
I can see how an extremist would make such a comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda."
guess we will see if anyone shows up for the debate..
This is the question
those who accept the official story are desperately trying to avoid facing, because to do so threatens their entire set of beliefs about the current nature of American society and the U.S. government.
Faith in the official story is ultimately based on one thing:
Fear of the consequences, should it be proven false.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17146603
It's just a fact that you liberals
create more questions than you ever answer. For example, go to my NOWHINE board and answer the few questions that we have about liberal rhetoric. I can't get a liberal to answer and be specific.
thanks for pointing out the official sites..
why?
either way one gets shot by one's own..
It's amazing the comfort
that liberals give to Al-Qaeda with their dreamed up theories. There's a new one everyday to help the enemy.
Vexari, thanks for adding a bunch of "what if"
liberal conspiracy nonsense. Well, if that's disproven, what about this? If you're going to have a conspiracy, stick with it, instead of going off on endless tangents, which is precisely what theorists do. No answer is good enough for you extremists. Most of the time, theories are based on total lies, rumors, and fallacies.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
what a parallel..
unthinking respect for authority
is the greatest enemy of truth..
~ Albert Einstein ~
how fortunate for governments
that the people they administer don't think..
~ Adolph Hitler ~
vital questions that need to be answered..
Loose Change Final Cut
is the third and final release of the documentary, drawing upon our experience and research since the release of Loose Change 2nd Edition.
The Final Cut will be substantially different in content and presentation, but will remain true to the spirit that has put Loose Change where it is today.
We have already interviewed dozens of professionals that both agree and disagree with the official version of events, and we are trying to accomplish the fairest documentary possible.
If all goes according to plan, the film should be complete and released by Spring 2007.
http://loosechange911.com/lcfc.htm
Loose Change 2nd Edition is the current release.
http://loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
Popular Mechanics invited to the National 9/11 Debate
http://www.teamliberty.net/id292.html
This letter / invitation was “hard copy” mailed to Popular Mechanics Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs, and editors of the Popular Mechanics book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, Brad Reagan and David Dunbar. Meigs was recently on Fox News, O’Reilly Factor touting the Popular Mechanics book as the final answer on 9/11. Let’s see if they really stand behind their work! Call them, write them, e-mail them, and let them know its time to debate because their book is debatable!
Email: popularmechanics@hearst.com
Popular Mechanics
300 West 5th Street
New York, NY 10019-5899
August 24, 2006
Dear James Meigs, David Dunbar, and Brad Reagan,
The National 9/11 Debate will be held on March 10, 2007 in Charleston, SC at the Charleston Convention Center / Embassy Suites. There will be two, seven-member debate teams. You are probably familiar with a few of the names on the debate team that rejects the government’s official version of 9/11.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire is a Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and the attorney for plaintiffs in 9-11 RICO Suit vs. Bush. His web site, 911forthetruth.com covers the RICO lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, and 53 other defendants in Federal Court.
James H. Fetzer a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, the author or editor of 27 books, and founder and co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
David Ray Griffin is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Theology at the Claremont Graduate School, where he taught for over 30 years, retiring in 2004. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11”.
Steven E. Jones is the co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, an expert in cold fusion and solar energy who earned his Ph.D. at Vanderbilt, and who has authored an influential study of the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2).
George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (retired) is a trained aircraft accident investigator who served as an Aircraft Maintenance Manager for more than 30 years and who was assigned additional duties as a member of aircraft accident investigation teams for the United States Air Force.
Morgan Reynolds is a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Texas A&M. He is the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush. He is also the former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. In June 2005, Lew Rockwell published Reynolds’ article: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis.
In May 2006, I invited the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists to defend their findings against the aforementioned debate team. To date, they all refuse to debate! On August 1, 2006 I opened the potential debate team that accepts the government account of 9/11 to any expert that is willing to participate in an honest, fair, professional debate.
One such expert has stepped forward. His name is Dr. F.R. Greening.
Frank R. Greening was born in London, England in 1947. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and has carried out research in physics, chemistry, and materials science for 30 years in academic and industrial positions. He has published approximately 80 research reports and journal articles, including numerous articles supporting the government’s collapse sequence theories of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2.
I have noted that Popular Mechanics is now touting itself as the final answer that debunks 9/11 Myths. The question now is will the people behind and responsible for the book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths, people such as yourself, stand firmly behind your work and participate in the National 9/11 Debate?
Please note, debate team members’ plane fares and hotel costs will be paid for by the National 9/11 Debate.
I look forward to your response to this invitation as soon as possible.
Yours in Liberty,
Ed Haas
(843) 817-9962
For more information on the National 9/11 Debate visit:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005
2/07/05: 911Research publishes Version 1 of this critique
2/09/05: Popular Mechanics publishes online edition of article
2/10/05: 911Review.com publishes critique of online edition
6/15/05: 911Research publishes Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.
More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.
"The Lies Are Out There"
James Meigs, appointed editor of Popular Mechanics in May 2004, trashes skeptics of the official story of 9/11/01 as irresponsible disgracers of the memories of victims, apart from "we as a society."
This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah). Meigs places outside of society anyone who questions the official version of events of 9/11/01:
We as a society accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us. ... Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists.
Meigs throws a series of insults at the "conspiracy theorists," saying they ignore the facts and engage in "elaborate, shadowy theorizing," and concludes his diatribe by saying:
[T]hose who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.
Besides trashing the skeptics, and conflating "this country" with its corrupt leaders, Meig's piece attempts to legitimate PM's "investigation." It reads:
We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.
This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.
Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.
"9/11: DEBUNKING the MYTHS"
The main article consists of six two-page spreads, each devoted to a topic. Spanning these spreads are a series of sixteen "poisonous claims," which the article purports to refute, while it implicitly identifies them as the beliefs of all in the "growing army" of "conspiracy theorists." The two-page spreads, beginning on page 70, are as follows:
Introduction
THE PLANES
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER (continued)
THE PENTAGON
FLIGHT 93
Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders). However, the sixteen "most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists" which it attacks are mostly specious claims, many of which were probably invented to discredit skepticism of the official story in the first place. The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims.
Thus the main approach of the article is to set up and attack a straw man of claims that it pretends represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement. The list includes many of the same claims that are debunked on the companion to this site, 911review.com. The article gives no hint of the questions raised by the evidence in this site, nor any sense of the issues raised by the broader 9/11 truth movement.
Before proceeding to its 16 points, the article's introduction levels more insults at the skeptics -- "extremists", some of whose theories are "byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate." It begins by asking you to type "World Trade Center conspiracy" into Google.com, and claims that "More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published" -- an incredible claim. (Of these supposed 3000 titles, we recommend only a few, listed here.)
The sixteen "claims" attacked by the article are described here under the headings taken from the article, which indicate either the claim, the counter-claim, or a broader issue.
THE PLANES
Where's The Pod
This image, which appears in the article, is found (with the same red oval) on a pod-debunking page of QuestionsQuestions.net, yet the article contains no mention of the site.
The pod-plane idea has been used for over a year to discredit skepticism of the official story. It's not surprising that the article gives it top billing. See ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane. The article mentions the site LetsRoll911.org and the video In Plane Site, implying they are representative of the skeptics. Of course it makes no reference to skeptics' sites debunking these productions and the pod-plane idea they feature, such as this page on OilEmpire.us, or this page on QuestionsQuestions.net.
No Stand-Down Order
Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission's timeline (without sourcing the Commission's Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD's account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD's radar coverage:
It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.
This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were planned for the day of 9/11/01. See Multiple War Games on 9/11/01 Helped to Disable Air Defense.
Intercepts Not Routine
This section quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us:
It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes.
It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact':
In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.
This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.
Flight 175's Windows
That the South Tower plane had no windows is one of several ludicrous claims made by the In Plane Site video, and, like the pod-planes claim, is dismissed by the simplest analysis. See The Windowless Plane.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
Widespread Damage
The article's lead point in the World Trade Center topic is an obscure idea that explosives in the basements of the towers damaged the lobbies at about the time the planes hit. With only sparse evidence to support it, this contention is only mentioned by a few researchers. Indeed it is entirely distinct -- in both the support that exists for it, and the support that it provides for "conspiracy theories" -- from the contention that explosives brought down the towers (56 and 102 minutes after the plane crashes).
Puffs Of Dust
The article features this image of the South Tower's collapse, taken about 2.5 seconds after the top started to plunge. It was taken by Gulnara Samoilova, who risked her life to take the photograph from a vantage point that would be engulfed by thick toxic dust in under 20 seconds.
Here the article cites this quote from an advertisement for the book Painful Questions:
The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.
By titling this section "Puffs Of Dust," rather than "explosions of concrete," and by showing only a collapse photograph from early in the South Tower's destruction, the article minimizes the explosiveness of the event, but nonetheless goes to lengths to explain these "puffs." It quotes NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder saying "When you have a significant portion of of a floor collapsing it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window" without explaining where the concrete dust came from, or even attempting to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives.
The article mentions none of the other features of the collapses that indicate controlled demolition, such as:
The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.
The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
"Melted Steel"
The article implies that skeptics' criticism of the official account that fires weakened the towers' structures is based on the erroneous assumption that the official story requires that the fires melted the steel.
In fact the fire-melts-steel claim was first introduced by apologists for the official story on the day of the attack, by no less than a structural engineer. The more sophisticated column failure and truss failure theories, advanced in subsequent days and weeks, are the subject of detailed analysis and debunking here.
Seismic Spikes
The idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses of the towers is the subject of the page, ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded Collapses. Unfortunately a number of web sites seized upon this idea without critically evaluating it. The article takes advantage of this red herring by pointing out that PrisonPlanet.com and WhatReallyHappened.com support it, while ignoring the much larger bodies of valid evidence of demolition that these sites present.
WTC 7 Collapse
Here the article cites 911review.org, a site that promotes discrediting ideas but purports to speak for the 9/11 skeptics' community. The article simply repeats the site's claim that "the video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to fire, but rather a controlled demolition," without directing the reader to where they can see videos, such as on WTC7.net. The article makes no mention of the facts that skeptics most often cite as evidence that the collapse was a controlled demolition:
The building collapsed with precisely vertical fashion.
The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall.
The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble.
The article lets NIST's Shyam Sunder sell the "progressive collapse" of Building 7:
What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
Note the guarded language Sunder uses to describe the extent of the collapse. The reader is led to believe that the collapse of a "section" could lead to the total collapse of the building, when in fact there are no examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
THE PENTAGON
Big Plane, Small Holes
Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole.
Intact Windows
Here the article misrepresents an argument by skeptics of the official account of Flight 77's crash by stating that the issue is intact windows "near the impact area," when the skeptics point to unbroken windows in the trajectory of portions of the Boeing 757.
PM uses this part to backhandedly promote the Pentagon Strike flash animation, which appears to serve the same function as this article: discrediting skepticism by associating it with sloppy research and easily disproven ideas.
Flight 77 Debris
Here the article drops a URL for Pentagon Strike a second time, in case the reader missed the first one. The lack of aircraft debris following the Pentagon crash has been noted by many people as suspicious, but it is not surprising, considering the nature of the crash. See ERROR: Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris
FLIGHT 93
The White Jet
Here the article counters the idea that a small white jet reported by eyewitnesses had anything to do with the crash by relating a detailed account by the aviation director of the company that owned the business jet, David Newell. According to Newell, the co-pilot of the jet, Yates Gladwell, was contacted by FAA's Cleveland Center to investigate the crash immediately after it happened. According to PM:
Gladwell confirmed the account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
Roving Engine
The far-flung debris field of the Flight 93 crash site along with the eyewitness accounts make a strong case that the plane was shot down. The article takes on this issue by first citing an article on Rense.com that makes the unsubstantiated claim that "the main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site." It then argues that engine parts being found 300 yards from the main site is reasonable for a simple crash, because airline accident expert Michael K. Hynes, who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, states parts could bounce that far "when you have high velocities, 500 mph or more." This theory is at odds with the eyewitness reports that the plane plummeted almost straight down, such as the following:
He hears two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees.
It makes a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then makes a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashes.
He hears a sound that "wasn't quite right" and looks up in the sky. "It dropped all of a sudden, like a stone."
Indian Lake
The article devotes this point to the confetti seen over Indian Lake, which is about two miles from the main crash site. It explains that this distance is "easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the blast."
F-16 Pilot
In the final point, the article takes on the allegation by retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre that the pilot who shot down Flight 93 was Major Rick Gibney. The article states that Gibney was flying an F-16 that day, but it was not on an intercept mission; rather it was to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State's Emergency Management Office, and fly him from Montana to Albany, NY.
PM delivers its closing ad hominem attack on skeptics in the voice of Ed Jacoby:
I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.
"9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED"
Having slain the conspiracy theory army's poison-spewing 16-headed dragon of 9/11 LIES -- PM declares the enemy vanquished, titling its final section "9/11 MYTHS DEBUNKED." On page 128, PM reveals its suit of armor -- a list of over 70 "experts" that it found "particularly helpful." The titles and names on this page are supposed to back the many assertions the article makes in the main section, but the article gives no indication of what experts or reports back up many of its key assertions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
9/11 Truth: NOVA's "Pancake Theory" Simulation Debunked
You Tube | February 12, 2007
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pancake_theory_nova_simulation_debunked.htm
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
by Peter Meyer
Some people, who suppose themselves to be both "intelligent" and "rational", dismiss any denial of the official story of September 11th as "conspiracy theory". This not only reveals an absence of (or at least a curious suspension of) thinking ability but also fails to address the fundamental question: Who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11? Articles on this website and on many others present convincing evidence (to those whose minds are not closed) that what happened on 9/11 (a crime which has never been subjected to a criminal investigation) could not have happened as the Bush administration claims it did. If so then why should we believe the claim that the operation was planned and carried out by a cabal consisting of a couple of dozen Arabs? Given all the holes in the official story, there is no reason to believe this claim. And if Arabs did not plan and carry out the attacks of 9/11, then who did? This is the question that those who accept the official story are desperately trying to avoid facing, because to do so threatens their entire set of beliefs about the current nature of American society and the U.S. government. Faith in the official story is ultimately based on one thing: Fear of the consequences, should it be proven false.
This article, by way of rebuttal of the deceptive straw-man tactics of Popular Mechanics, examines the evidence for and against the official story (which is itself a conspiracy theory) of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and concludes that there is no evidence to support the official story, and that it cannot be true. This was also the conclusion reached in the author's earlier article on this subject, The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism. Read, think about it, and decide for yourself. Don't allow yourself to be deceived by the complicity of the mainstream media in the cover-up and by the trolls in the online forums and on Wikipedia
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59
Email this article
Printer friendly page
It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker. With each passing month there’s been a trend of continuing revelations and historic events that will break the dam of government deception once and for all. There have been actors, musicians, scientists, engineers, former presidential cabinet members, rescue workers, survivors, historians, and even foreign officials weighing in with their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.
Recent polls by both Zogby and Scripps Howard show the number of Americans questioning the government about 9/11 to be growing exponentially. When they know you have the truth on your side, those who stand to lose will employ the most underhanded tactics to keep their own conspiracy theory alive.
As if right on cue, Popular Mechanics returns to the arena of 9/11 Truth to present an extension of their March 2005 hit piece, “Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Hard Facts.” Now they’ve taken the original piece and extended it into a book-length format. In view of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth movement gaining more mainstream coverage than ever, it’s only to be expected that an attack on the movement’s credibility would emerge.
On the inside cover of the book there is a list of endorsements from some well-known talking heads. For example, Glen Reynolds, proprietor of the neocon blog Instapundit.com, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see Instapundit.com, 8/13/06) to endorse this collection of “hard facts.”
However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America’s “maverick” Senator John McCain for the book’s forward. Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda’s central role in the attacks is “overwhelming.” (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository. Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as “those who have fought in all the wars in our history.” (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government’s official line is treasonous.
In the interest of time, I will not go through each “myth” and refute it point by point. Since this book contains most of the same information as the original Popular Mechanics article, I would instead recommend that the reader track down Jim Hoffman’s excellent piece in Global Outlook Magazine #10. A more detailed piece by Peter Meyer was also posted on the Serendipity website last year. Other responses have come from Alex Jones, as well from the always resourceful website, Killtown.
It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly.
Starting on page 8, a section focuses on an unsupported theory that the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 were carrying pods that unloaded a cargo upon impact. As both of the pieces cited above (Global Research, and Meyer's) pointed out, this is an argument that has been made by a handful of fringe 9/11 activists and popularized in the widely discredited “In Plane Site” video. It usually goes hand in hand with the “no windows on the plane” theory regarding flights United 175 and American 11. This can be disproved by simply examining video and photographic evidence. These two arguments are analogous to the Umbrella Man theory in the JFK assassination.
The editors don’t do so well in trying to pull together a theory that explains the lack of air defense. Popular Mechanics wants the reader to believe that there was no air response simply because there was no protocol for intercepting domestically hijacked planes previous to 9/11. Some simple background research on NORAD, FAA or Department of Defense regulations should clear this up entirely.
Rather than refute what the book does tell us, it’s important to acknowledge what it does not report. As discussed in numerous arenas, including Capital Hill testimony by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, there were a number of military war games taking place on the morning of 9/11. A consequence of the war games was that instead of seeing four hijacked aircraft on their screen, the honest people at NORAD were looking at nearly 30. Popular Mechanics doesn’t even mention these and the impact they may have had on a successful air defense campaign. This absolutely warrants discussion.
The book then shifts to the question of what exactly hit the Pentagon. This is the most wildly debated and divisive topic in the 9/11 Truth movement. Few people agree on the specifics: some say the building was struck by a missile, some say a commercial plane, while others feel that Flight 77 indeed hit the Pentagon. So while few of us agree completely on what did happen at the Pentagon, almost all skeptics agree that something smells rotten here. Video of the second plane hitting the WTC has become the iconic image of the horrific events of that day. However, we have never seen any photographic evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. This seems a bit strange when you consider that we’re talking about the most heavily guarded and visually monitored building in the country. The Pentagon has cameras covering it at all angles such that the image of a plane should at least register as a large blur.
But to this day, we have not been given much more than five still video frames. These frames do not show any visual evidence of a 757. Add to that the immediate seizure of videotape from a nearby Citgo Station and Sheraton Hotel and red flags should shoot up. The government has said that they do have multiple videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, when the DOD responded to a FOIA request by the right-wing organization Judicial Watch to release footage that would put “conspiracy theories” to rest, what was released was actually described as “underwhelming” by a Fox News reporter. Indeed, this was the government’s big opportunity to make their case. Instead, we were given no clear evidence of Flight 77, but what looked like still photos taken from almost the same angle as the previously released frames. If there is photographic evidence, which at least one of the 84 other surveillance cameras should have caught, why not release them all and shut us up?
The Pentagon section of the book offers a good example of some of the many inconsistencies present in this book. On page 61, the editors remind the reader that “it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera image would reveal the crystal clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second.” Now turn to page 63 under the section titled ‘Flight 77 Debris.’ Here William Kagasse is quoted as saying, “It [Flight 77] was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it . . . I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet off the ground.” This quote was aired on ABC’s Nightline. According to Mr. Kagasse, the plane was extraordinarily identifiable down to specific details of the position of the window shades.
So which is it? If Mr. Kagasse was able to leave the scene with such detail, how could not one single security camera capture at least the blurry outline of a plane?
When discussing the size of the hole caused by the plane, we run into another psychological tactic frequently employed in the book. As stated previously, the Pentagon is one of the most hotly debated aspects of the official 9/11 narrative. There are hundreds of web sites that explore the events of 9/11 with some entirely dedicated to the incident at the Pentagon. Yet, Popular Mechanics chose to cite www.the7thfire.com as their primary source for their information on the Pentagon. Why do that when sites such as www.pentagonresearch.com exist to focus solely on this topic?
I can answer that pretty easily. If the reader decided to check the source given, they would find themselves on a web site dedicated to new age topics such as dream catchers and miracles. Information related to 9/11 is something of a footnote in the grand scene of the page. The implication would be that those who question 9/11 typically sit around talking mind control and “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” both of which are hot topics on the site. This is pure misrepresentation.
Continuing the trend of misrepresentation, the editors went out of their way to tie as many sources as possible to Holocaust deniers. One example would be their choice to cite an article from www.rense.com, noting afterwards that the site focuses frequently on Zionism and Holocaust denial. The message being that if the reader was starting to empathize with these conspiracy nuts, they should be aware that anti-Semitism dominates the movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will always be those who pin every wrongdoing in the world on Jews, Zionists and Israel.
Perhaps the most ludicrous assertion made in the entire book relates to WTC Building 7. Building 7 is often seen as the smoking gun of 9/11 research, based on its classic demolition-style collapse and lack of coverage in the “9/11 Commission Report.” Leaseholder Larry Silverstein also made an infamous confession in a PBS documentary. Mr. Silverstein states that he instructed the fire department commander to “pull” the building at 5:20PM. While some have argued that the first two towers collapsed because of the combination of fire and plane impact, the same could not be said of Building 7. While there were fires (pictured in the book), it was not hit by any aircraft. When combining the fact that the building collapsed at near free fall speed with Mr. Silverstein’s comments, this would seem an open and shut case: World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished. Mr. Silverstein later emerges to explain that by “pull it,” he was referring to removal of the fire fighters from the building. This is troubling when you factor in that the New York Times reported on November 29, 2001, that by 11:30 am all firefighters had been removed from the area due to safety concerns. Further, FEMA’s initial report indicated that there was only light structural damage caused by the fires. In fact, FEMA has all but literally scratched their proverbial heads in trying to explain the building collapse.
The editors also decided to take on the definition of “pull it” once and for all. After speaking with four unnamed demolition and engineering experts, they claim that not one of these individuals have ever heard the term “pull it” to describe controlled demolition. Instead the term is a reference to a procedure where a building is cut at the foundation and literally pulled over. To cover themselves, Popular Mechanics made sure to include a mention that the technique of literally pulling a building over itself was tried unsuccessfully on buildings 5 and 6. However, the aforementioned documentary showed a demolition team announcing that they were about to “pull” one of the other buildings. Once the order is given, the building clearly collapses in perfect symmetry. So it would seem that the attempts to “pull” the buildings were quite successful.
Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.” Other than Mr. Loizeaux’s title, no other credentials are cited for him to make such an assertion. Finally, it’s noted that, “Dr. Jones primary field of study at BYU (Brigham Young University) is metal-catalyzed or cold fusion, a study that is unrelated to engineering or the performance of tall buildings.” The key word here is “primary.” While Dr. Jones may focus on such said issues in his studies at BYU, it does not mean that he hasn’t studied basic physics and metallurgy. So once again, the reader is to rely on assumptions and half-truths in the face of irrefutable evidence and dictates of logic.
Like a jury delivering a verdict, the book ends with a 20-page epilogue that serves as an indictment of the mind of “the conspiracy theorist.” Popular Mechanics Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs manages to invoke the Illuminati, New World Order, and Zionism in the first sentence. Meigs cites numerous pieces of hate mail he has received, which accuse him of being everything from a government shill to a MOSSAD agent. Ironically, most of the charges leveled against people questioning the official 9/11 story are tactics employed throughout this book. A few examples include, but are not limited to, marginalization of opposing views, guilt by association, slipshod handling of facts, demonization and circular reasoning.
To his credit, Meigs acknowledges the questions some raised about the relationship between Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Benjamin Chertoff, head of the magazine’s research department. Meig’s admits that they are likely related, but have never met and had no contact for the purpose of the 2005 article. This is a great example of the use of circular reasoning. It defies logic to think that, in writing a story like this, any journalist worth his/her weight wouldn’t cover all the bases. In this case, if a member of your staff is related to the head of the very agency that was born out of the ashes of 9/11, why not tap into that resource? It would seem to be as good a time as any for a Chertoff family reunion.
Let me be clear. I do not pretend to know exactly what happened on 9/11: I also have my disagreements with many of the theories that have been put out there over the years. What I do know is that what the people were told happened on 9/11 is not the truth. If Americans are to take any lessons from history, it is that those in power will redefine the truth in a way that bests suits their interests and agenda. Those who stand to profit from an event like 9/11 have no interest in opening themselves up to any line of questioning. They also suffer in that the facts are not on their side. This book tries to serve as the bandage for a gaping wound in the official 9/11 narrative. Unfortunately for those in charge, that wound shows no signs of healing.
You may reach Craig Schlanger at craig.schlanger@gmail.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1242.shtml
Complete conjecture and theory upon a theory.
Notice the language in your link.
Maybe this will clear something up for you MoonBeam.
In a surprising manner, the Big Bang may have satisfied the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070130092040nnnn.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html
Stalinistkidd, how did it get from Big Bang to Humans?
Quit acting like a mule. Something had to evolve from sludge. You talk about all this "I know, I know." You know nothing. I didn't learn the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics from the pulpit.
FruitLoops, it seems your only exposure to evolution and science is from the pulpit. Do your own research or remain an idiot. I know where I am putting my money..
We didn't evolve out of muddy water? Scientific THEORY states that our lungs evolved from gills, like tadpoles to Frogs over a period of a billion years? If that's not the case, did we evolve from the air? You may want to check on your science. The one-celled omoeba is the king of life?
Everything coming from sludge is a new on to me FruitLoops. I try to keep up to date with evolutionary and scientific studies. I can't recall any mention of sludge but I also don't focus any attention on alternative sources.
Lets see what ya got FruitLoops. Post a link or two..
And, if you want to say that the Bang created
matter, then you are just as absurd as you blindly claim the creationist people are.
That's what the Big Bang theory is all about, correct?
Humans formed from sludge through billions of years of evolution.. Everything came from sludge. The sludge somehow came from a bang, too. Where did the bang come from?
FruitLoops, if only 20% of me were here, I would still have you by 99%.
BTW, where did the sludge theory come from?
No, dolt, that's what you're saying.
Order comes from chaos.
After all humans evolved from sludge. Surely, a computer can come from shaking a box for a million/billion years too, right?
Put it together, and quit smoking away your brain cells. You really aren't all there, are you?
Hey, if you think you can shake a box for one million years and come out of it with a computer then I say go for it dude.
However, my suggestion for you would be for you to shake your head long enough and hope some brains magically appear.
Who cares where your computer was built?
How is this relevant? Put down the dope and think straight. They could shake the box in China, too. How is this relevant? LOLROTF. I guess you can shake small boxes and components will magically appear, and then if you want a computer, put the components together in one big box and shake it. Evolution at work! Eventually, a brand new computer will result, pefectly orderly in package!
My computer was built in china you Dolt.
You can really make up those wise little Star Trek analogies.
So, your computer didn't come from sludge? Did the dell people shake a box for a few million years to create your computer? Order needs a creator. It just doesn't happen, according to scientific LAW.
My computer came from neither. I bought it from dell.
Quick news flash for you. We are not onboard the Starship Enterprise, you are not Captain Kirk and there is no Creator.
I can give you one bit of information you should find useful... You are a complete Moron
Followers
|
0
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
141
|
Created
|
01/25/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |