My understanding is that he owned a 2013 model. Also, @chingalera, my understanding is that the car was traveling south, and thus the engine was found a couple hundred feet in front (not behind) the vehicle.

Personally, I find this suspicious. Most suspicious is the call a few hours prior to the accident he made to a wikileaks attorney. Normally, I wouldn't expect official agencies to put out a "hit." There are just safer ways of going about preventing a damaging story, like detention, or smear campaigns. However, if it's possible he had damaging documents that he could release via wikileaks, it would be out of their control. In that case I'd entertain the possibility.

Also, Richard Clarke (former Counter Terrorism Czar) has points out that we have good reason to believe that major country intelligence organizations have the ability to remotely control cars. Further, he pointed out that this crash (especially the lack of skid marks) is consistent with such. He was careful, however, not to explicitly implicate any particular agencies. For my money, LAPD is at least as likely as the FBI. Those fuckers are no good.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^VoodooV:
twice now, Ms. Hoover has attempted to make shitty arguments to Bill whenever the topic of increased taxes comes up.
The last time she was on Real Time prior to this, she asked Bill if he was willing to give up one of his cars since he advocated higher taxes for rich people (like Bill) It's a fallacy as she is appealing to fear. Oh No! Bill will be slightly less rich if he had to pay bigger taxes.
And then again, she suggests that Bill should knowingly take advantage of tax loopholes so he doesn't have to pay any tax even though he has the ability to absorb higher taxes without significantly affecting his life.
She's kind of a shithead. (and so is Grover as is self evident by this video and many others on the sift)

Yeah they're both awful but the biggest shithead on this panel is Richard Clarke...not for what he said but for who he is.


Who is he?

>> ^VoodooV:

twice now, Ms. Hoover has attempted to make shitty arguments to Bill whenever the topic of increased taxes comes up.
The last time she was on Real Time prior to this, she asked Bill if he was willing to give up one of his cars since he advocated higher taxes for rich people (like Bill) It's a fallacy as she is appealing to fear. Oh No! Bill will be slightly less rich if he had to pay bigger taxes.
And then again, she suggests that Bill should knowingly take advantage of tax loopholes so he doesn't have to pay any tax even though he has the ability to absorb higher taxes without significantly affecting his life.
She's kind of a shithead. (and so is Grover as is self evident by this video and many others on the sift)


Yeah they're both awful but the biggest shithead on this panel is Richard Clarke...not for what he said but for who he is.

>> ^bookface:

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.


This. (thanks @bookface)

Think of the Iran-Contra scandal. Was Reagan involved? "I Don't recall."

"funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (or in this case the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.[47] Funding from one foreign country, Brunei, was botched when North's secretary, Fawn Hall, transposed the numbers of North's Swiss bank account number. A Swiss businessman, suddenly $10 million richer, alerted the authorities of the mistake. The money was eventually returned to the Sultan of Brunei, with interest.[48]<-wikipedia

I agree with Chomsky that it's highly improbable the GW Bush administration engineered the entire thing from head to toe, and it was never leaked. If there was any conspiracy happening it was more likely that GWB and friends simply left the back door and looked the other way in terms of security. Why go through the trouble of orchestrating a highly elaborate international black op when you can just ignore guys like Richard Clark, and count the days until something goes down? Perhaps what W was thinking while sitting in that school house on 9/11 was, "Heck, I didn't think they'd make SUCH a ruckus." Of course I'm speculating but I suppose I'm making Chomsky's point, too.

"starting construction on the biggest federal building project in the Washington area since the Pentagon...The project will bring together more than 15,000 employees now scattered in 35 offices"

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-09/politics/homeland.security.headquarters_1_homeland-security-historic-buildings-consolidation?_s=PM:POLITICS>
> ^bmacs27:

>> ^marbles:
disgusting lying pricks. both of them.

33 new buildings eh?

Yes Richard Clarke is a disgusting prick. He's a bastard.

>> ^marbles:

disgusting lying pricks. both of them.


agreed with you on that

>> ^marbles:

disgusting lying pricks. both of them.


33 new buildings eh?

I have read Richard Clarke's book. It was good.
He was one of the few whitehouse staffers that wasn't replaced when bush took office (and he served other presidents before clinton as well).

Most remarkable comment about the day of Sept 11th was that Condi Rice's reaction was near panic to the point where she became completely useless at her job.

I also liked his remark about how Bill Clinton was always up late reading books (no, not porn mags) and always read every major paper each morning. And George W. Bush was always in bed around 9pm. (I guess the latter relied more on prayer for guidance, than on information).

How to shut down GITMO in 3 easy steps

1) send prisoners back to countries in which they were captured (i.e. not cuba), even if they were captured in the US.
2) have those countries prosecute based on laws in those countries. If guilty, likely death penalty, if not - it's those countries who let the people go.
3) spend time and money keeping track of anyone released, to see if they lead to other terrorist cells.

The point of saying "I will close Guantanamo Bay", Mr. President, was that it showed that you think the Constitution is important. More important than the potential crimes of future terrorists against Americans. You are not Jack Bauer, Mr. President, because he is a fictional character.

Richard Clark was exactly right about the war on terror - it's not just a war on the ground, it's a war of ideas. And we cannot win the war on terror without winning over the hearts and minds of muslim world. Every action we take, as a nation, that sends the message of "we can do whatever we want" or "we are better than you" gets immediately turned into terrorist propaganda that recruits more people and expands their funding base. We are NOT safer after invading Iraq. We are NOT safer for holding people indefinitely without trial.

And Obama doesn't want to prosecute previous administration because it's dangerous politically. Would also be expensive due to the appeals process, and would just be divisive among left and right wing people/states. Jesse Ventura would prosecute, because he doesn't care about getting reelected.

>> ^quantumushroom:
How many of you lefties are willing to explain to the survivors and families of a terrorist attack why we didn't torture some piece of filth for the intel to stop it?


Hmmmm...it seems that terrorism wasn't even a priority to the Bush administration...unless it had something to do with oil and invading Iraq:

Condoleezza Rice’s testimony to the 9/11 commission supports Richard Clarke’s charges to the commission that the Bush administration reduced the urgency of the problem of counter-terrorism--and that the invasion of Iraq marked a major diversion from the “war against terrorism.”
(source)

So...now you must be really mad at the Bush administration for not doing their job and protecting the American people, right QM? Because the Bush administration immediately lowered the priority of anti-terrorism planning to a point that was even lower than Clinton's.

I repeat: upon taking office, G.W. Bush gave a lower priority to fighting terrorism than Bill Clinton.

What do you think the families of terrorist attacks would say about that?

>> ^heathen:
>> ^BoneyD:
Ohh, for fuck's sake: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Have you actually watched this video? I don't see how your link is relevant?
This video is not discussing photos showing "angle of the cuts".
There is no accusation here related to firemen.
This is not related to the "yellow residue".
What is stated here is that the dust cloud from the collapse of the towers, that covered several blocks, contained thermate.
The dust cloud occurred prior to the cleanup operation.


What are you talking about? The link describes how clean up began fairly soon after the collapse, where they used thermite to cut the remaining columns. It could very well have been all over the place.

This other page they foward to (if you read my link?) talks about the absurdity of an apparatus required to set off a thermite cutting device on a column. Which would be bulky and clearly visible as the walls would have to be moved in to fit them.

Anyway, to be honest, I'm not up to scratch with all the physics here... because I don't need to be. I can accept that Al-Qaeda has the capasity and the will to pull off an attack as sophisticated as this, employing a style they have used before (ie. multiple simultaneous attacks on two or more targets), and the vast bulk of verifyable evidence points to this being the case. Richard Clarke stated in his book 'Against All Enemies' that an attack using airliners was not unknown as a probable tactic in intelligence circles.

What I think is happening with conspiracy theorists is that they can't accept that the "simple people" of the Middle East are as smart and as resourceful as any westerner. It is hubris to assume that they are lesser people to be pittied and unable to comprehend what the West has been doing to them. America is a fantastic nation and has accomplished some truly amazing things in its history, but it really has to get this superiority chip off its shoulder and learn a little humility.

QM, this poll refutes the first half of your post:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

Uh, that "poll" doesn't even cover the Clinton years.

And either way, it rightfully illustrates wrong-headed thinking.

Either B. Clinton was/is a rockstar who could do no wrong (according to the liberal mainstream media) in the eyes of the world, in which case world opinion of the USA was higher at the cost of being attacked repeatedly by emboldened terrorists.......OR Slick was as "despised" as Bush supposedly is now, in which case the liberal can't-we-all-just-get-along milktoast claptrap of Clinton was as soundly rejected by jihadidiots as promises of destruction.

In other words, if they don't accept peace, by blowing them to pieces we lose nothing except the risk of future terrorist attacks.

And Richard Clarke's book refutes the second half of your post.

If you want to stand by Clinton's record of failure in dealing with threats to national security as the best he could do, that's your right.

For the survival-minded, Obama is not a risk worth taking.

QM, this poll refutes the first half of your post:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

And Richard Clarke's book refutes the second half of your post.