I feel that 9/11 is pretty much invalidated as an event that Bush has helped America go through, since he absolutely failed at helping the far wider reach of victims of Katrina. Plus you have to add all the conspiracy theories regarding the attacks. There are so many unanswered questions..

He's made education even worse, I hope he's remembered for that. It'd be awesome to have some sort of educational revolution in the States.. One can dream.

Unfortunately for mankind, stupidity isn't always painful. If it was, we'd all be geniuses within a few years of reaching the age of reason. Luckily, however, we can rise above our faults and try to understand at least the bit of our universe that is encompassed in our senses. We cannot understand god, if it exists, in any sense beyond our human senses, so it's amusing to find people berating Dawkins (or anybody else, for that matter) about a simple set of beliefs. The anger in those responses is laughable, at least, because it is out of suppose love that these people wish Dawkins to burn in hell for eternity. Nothing wrong with a strange belief if the believer is never taken seriously, right?

I would love, after my death, for a god to actually exist and show himself to me. Because I have a lot of unanswered questions about this ridiculous shell he locked me into. But I don't think those questions will ever be answered. If there is a god, it cannot possibly show any interest in us as more than science experiments. After all, we've evolved opposable thumbs and higher brain functions, and we turn our rising capabilities into consumerist whoring and war. If there is a god, it probably wants to scrape us from the petri dish and start over.

Anywho...funny video.

I would appreciate it if one of the "truthers" would lay out a general summary of what they think happened that day and why.

For example - for those pointing to the BBC video - do you think their entire staff was "in on it"? Every cameraman? Every tech guy? And nobody talked? And, after all that careful orchestration, they didn't wait until the tower fell before they started? What? It doesn't even pass the vaguest, most forgiving laugh test. I don't know what the explanation is (though I can imagine several without straining credulity) - but the idea that the government told them about it before is, by itself, ridiculous.

I mean, why would anyone want them to be "in on it" in the first place? Why not just let them report on it naturally after the building falls down? What would be the point? If they can be made to report on a building that hasn't fallen yet, certainly they could be trusted to "go with the official story" after the building falls.

People are discussing this like there's two scenarios here and we're evaluating facts to decide which is right. But the alternative "truthy" scenario is never fleshed out - there's nothing to evaluate. I've seen a lot of people make lists of 100 things that they think are suspicious, but they never seem to write up an explanation that resolves all (or even many of) those 100 things. Often those 100 things themselves point to wildly different scenarios.

Write up a scenario that fits the facts better than the "official" story - tell me how many new "suspicious coincidences" arise and how many "unanswered questions" there are with the new theory.

PLEASE view this link
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2007/12/11/dana_perino_takes_it_personally_when_peo

it will supply the hyperlinks that are in the article below

White House Climate Science Censorship - Why Perino Takes It Personally
Posted by kert_davies on 12/11/2007 4:33 pm

Hmmm...wonder why Dana Perino reacted with such passion to a question yesterday about Rep. Waxman's (proposed) report on climate science censorship by the Bush White House?

Aside from her laughable and classic Bush-like response - dismissing the report then admitting that she hadn't even read it but had "seen reports about the report".... a flub up reported nicely here on DeSmogBlog.

Add this to Perino's mishandling of White House censorship of Center for Disease Control Director's Senate testimony in late October, covered well by ThinkProgress and RollingStone.

Here at ExxonSecrets, we know a little more about Ms. Perino from our 10+ years of research on global warming backlash. Her anti-environmental roots run deep.

Kyoto Bashing in 1997
First off, in our archives we have a press release she penned during her days on Capitol Hill in the late 1990s, when she was press officer for Representative Schaefer (R-CO). Her boss was admonishing the Clinton Administration in June 1997 to slow down the push toward Kyoto agreement in December 1997, saying there still were too many unanswered questions about the impact on the US economy and other common refrains of the day pushed by the Global Climate Coalition.

On the CEQ Denial Team
Perino came back to DC to work as Director of Public Affairs for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where she was, in fact, running cover for climate criminals Jim Connaughton and Phil Cooney, the two main culprits in the Waxman report.

At CEQ, Perino was part of the global warming policy gatekeeper team, doing damage control and coordinating with other agencies on climate policy and communications. There are many memos to and from Perino to Cooney including this one in the midst of Cooney's EPA report editing meltdown. Here she forwards Phil a comforting article by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, another Exxon funded front group. Cooney responds hopefully, "do you know where this ran?"

Perino Hangs Out with Exxon's Main Front Group

Like Cooney, Perino also cozied up to Exxon's Denial Machine. Here is an email from Perino to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Angela Logomasini asking for a lunch meeting and saying she had been reading the CEI's report The Environmental Source. The global warming chapter of this anti-enviro tome, penned by Myron Ebell, looks like it became a key page in the CEQ playbook. CEI at the time was the leading recipient of Exxon denial cash, but was dumped by the Exxon Foundation in 2006.

Here's another note from Perino to Cooney and Connaughton referencing a Myron Ebell piece in the Washington Times about a prank invitation to a CEQ reception for Lee Raymond.

Redacted Information
Most of these documents were delivered to Greenpeace after multiple Freedom of Information Act requests (see previous blog) and can now be found on the White House web page and our web site.

However, many of the documents we got back from our FOIA request looked like this one, from Cooney to the entire staff including Perino - mostly redacted text, leading Waxman's team to look for what was under the black marker lines... Read their report for all the details of the investigation

What Else Has Perino Seen Behind White House Doors?
One can only guess what else Dana Perino knows about the global warming Denial Machine within the White House. She has certainly had a front row seat. Maybe the press will ask her more questions about her experiences. Eventually they will all be held accountable...stay tuned.

That was actually dated the month before the National Park Services response...so those are the points they are attempting to address. The most current response from PEER regarding the National Park Service response is as follows.

EVOLVING GRAND CANYON POSITION LEAVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS — National Park Service Now Distancing Itself from Creationist Book It Approved

Washington, DC — The National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah’s Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those “Young Earth” claims about the origin of the canyon – a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent

In a statement issued by the National Park Service (NPS) Chief of Public Affairs, David Barna, on January 4th, the agency contends that park rangers have been instructed to “use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon…The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old.”

The statement adds, “Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

* Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
* What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
* Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?

The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

It's still stupid that they are carrying the book...but it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as it was made out to be...that Park Service Employees weren't allowed to say how old the Grand Canyon was etc...

For some reason I'm just now seeing Farhad's comment.

I agree with most of what you said, especially regarding how marijuana is treated on the same level as harder drugs. Sending someone to jail over smoking pot is ridiculous, especially when you consider there are a few states that don't segregate their prisons by crime. 'Hey you smoked pot, welcome to prison your roommate is Johnny Rapesalot. That'll teach you hippy!'

As far as the effects of marijuana (I'd say the change in mood/behavior is more profound than caffeine or nicotine) are probably lesser than alcohol, though there are a lot of factors to consider when dealing with how good or bad alcohol is. It's probably a lot safer than most drugs, I've seen varying opinions on whether or not its possible to OD on marijuana, but general consensus seems to say if it is you probably need a whole lot of it. Unfortunately the government limits a lot of the research done on marijuana so there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Okay back to the War on Drugs. First of all calling it a war is just stupid. What I've been trying to say, and maybe not doing a good job of it, is that it should be refocused towards treating the addicts and not throwing them in jail. In an ideal world everyone would use drugs responsibly or at least in a manner that doesn't effect others. I'm not so upset by people who die from ODs or who's lives are destroyed by their drug habits (Though these things are very sad and unfortunate), as I am over when their use effects other people, and I'd say it frequently does. It's a complex problem I don't think can be solved by just legalizing everything, or as we currently do now, throw anyone associated with drugs in jail.

As far as tobacco goes personally you wouldn't see me shedding any tears if it were outlawed, but then you'd run into the same problem you have with other drugs. And while it's true tobacco causes a lot health problems (an understatement I know) I don't think I've ever heard of someone who stripped naked and attacked a police officer because they were on a nicotine high.

"An interesting video, which takes the claim of controlled demolition with the use of thermite seriously."

Let's analyze this statement, shall we?...but not in such long-winded detail as the insects that pick apart, an "official" story-

there are some folks, who could see their goddamn clothes on fire, and deny the shit was either being consumed, or damaging the tissue beneath it, or that they even smelled the flesh as it was consumed.....

What miniscule meaning, true false or otherwise, does one minute smidgen of data, shown here or not, do to say anything more, than "I believe what I am told, because it is "The Official Story"-

Instead of the towers, or the goddamn explosions heard by several firefighters, or by the cat with the key, or the confiscated footage in D.C., or the tiny hole made by an expertly flown jumbo jet, or the lack of debris there, or the WTC 7 having been pulled(not to mention her tenants), or Rudy's lying, pathetic bought and sold ass, or Bush's continual, ineffectual actions, or the goddamn media silence on the issue when everyone is talking about it in thinking forums, or the constant barrage of garbage entertainment, organized sports, grieving victims, and unanswered questions.....what fucking proof does anyone need, to know that something is fucking rotten in Denmark, surrounding the events of this day, and the subsequent funding of the machine of consolidation of power and control....

The frustration the unbelievers have, is their inability to place blame on anyone. It was NOT, my Muslim bretheren, some off the reservation sand-dwellers....and if it was, the initialed ones had their hands innit.

This denial shit, is getting old.

I know three languages: English, Classical Latin, and Ancient Greek, and will begin learning German in the fall. Those three languages are not equal in their expressive capacities. As an example, it is awkward and difficult to express parallelism in an English sentence. Frequently, we are reduced to the awkward expression "on the one hand this...on the other hand that...", which is hardly natural. As a result, English speakers tend to omit any explicit mention of parallel ideas, because the way to express them is so cumbersome. Ancient Greek however has the handy expression "men...de", which explicitly notes parallel ideas. Suddenly, parallel ideas can be quickly and naturally expressed and as a result connections that would be omitted and implied in English are explicit in Greek.

Another example, the demonstrative use of adjectives. English does use adjectives demonstratively but such adjectives tend to be very ambiguous. "The land of THE FREE and the home of THE BRAVE"; we understand the meaning but there are many unanswered questions with regards to these demonstrative adjectives. Are these free people or free things? Is it one or many? Are we talking about the concept of the free as a whole or just a specific instance of it? In Greek and Latin, those sorts of questions are answered by case endings, and, in Greek, the definitive article. As a result abstractions based upon purely conceptual ideas are much more easily expressed. If you ever pick up an English translation of Plato, you might be puzzled by references to the Good and the Just and the Noble; all of which are expressed much more lucidly in the original Greek.

The point here is that different languages and dialects provide you with different expressive toolkits. Some of these toolkits are better able to equip one to speak and write articulately than others. I do not know enough about the dialect spoken by Black urban Americans to say definitively whether or not it better equips one to speak articulately. It is however entirely possible that, by not having their speech and language "corrected", young, Black Americans are being handicapped in their ability to express themselves. One who cannot express his or herself is doomed never to break out of the working class.

there are unanswered questions regarding 9/11, the government is withholding information.

Yes but there are a LOT of unanswered questions about 9/11 which leads to every theory under the sun. Plus the way Rumsfeld and co act its kinda hard not to think that something really stinks.

I think aaronfr has the right approach. Just establish that we've got unanswered questions and need another look at things.

My personal opinion is that negligence is clear at the least with the air cover being stripped and the plan continued in spite of people knowing it. Cover up for that negligence is likely and was probably illegal in itself. It's possible that they knew about an attack and allowed it though I don't see proof so much as reason to wonder, more than that I get doubtful about. I'll grant some slim chance of more, but I've seen no "proof" so much as questions people assumed was proof. I've done some welding and torch work though I've never worked with explosives and some of those look like oxy/acetylene cuts to me. What do I know though, maybe that's what an explosive cut looks like too.

We can convince people we've got questions and need a look, but the more Alex Jones we get on them the more of them we lose. Do we want an investigation, or to push our pet theories? The movement needs to settle that among themselves best they can. I don't think it's a hard issue to move people on if you stick to the core details that can be shown. There are questions, just not the proof some claim. Not yet at least.

I'll give it a vote because I do think we've got unanswered questions, but I do have a lot of reservations about the issue myself and it's one I'm hesitant to get involved in. Not because it's not a valid issue but because so many seem intent on discrediting both themselves and the movement which makes it messy to get involved in.

The investigation was flawed no doubt. Telling us that nobody was responsible for anything or could have prevented anything is garbage when they stripped the nation of air cover for exercises and went ahead with the plan even though that info had been released to the press. If they had remembered the basic principle of what a defense was for in the first place the first plane might have hit but probably not the rest.

It was underfunded, one of the members themselves said it was like they were set up to fail. They were blocked at too many turns for access to information such as not being able to interview high level prisoners or their interrogators but being confined to reports instead. The story we got wasn't their story from their investigation so much as it was the administrations.

You've got so many good issues and reasons to ask for another look, there's just one problem. Alex Jones and the type. Reasonable questions and reasonable doubts get lost in all the wild stories and theories being tossed around as proved in some way till the issue is the punchline for a joke rather than anything people want to get involved with.

From what I've seen the family members, firefighters, and commission members who want answers aren't attaching themselves to Jones and the type. He's just hanging on to them for the ride. If the movement never watched a thing he made or said again and followed the families and firefighters and such instead, then you'd get somewhere. Its biggest enemy right now is itself.

Sorry for the long post, activism is what I do and it frustrates me to see an issue blown like this one has been. The point is to reach people and change minds, if nobody listens it doesn't even matter if you were right, you aren't changing a thing. The wild stories I don't think are right, but even so. You have to work in a way people hear and understand.

Sounds and looks kinda like a Phantoms clone...

"yo, Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms!" - Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Unspeakable horrors have mysteriously befallen the whole town of Snowfield, Colorado, leaving behind only a few mangled body parts and unanswered questions. Enter two vacationing sisters and a sheriff and deputy from a nearby town, who try to piece things together with the help of a scientist-turned-tabloid hack. But will they unravel the mystery of the monstrous subterranean killing force before they become its prey? Adapted by Dean Koontz from his own novel.

Thanks, firefly. I took off the NSFW on second viewing because that was overkill.

Of course, the unanswered question is: would any of these guys buy a woman a $2.99 plate of shrimp at Long John Silver's?

That's a long shot. I said there were unanswered questions regarding 9/11, not that there was a conspiracy. The true conspiracy theory is that a bunch of Arabs hijacked 3 planes, when there is no clear direct evidence linking them together, other then the act itself and the shoddy video of Osama Bin Laden (I know Arabic and it was pretty clear this was BS, Osama used the wrong hand and wore jewelery which is a big no no in Islam).

We've spent more money on the war, and on impeaching Bill Clinton then we spent on the 9/11 Commission Report and it's investigation behind the events of 9/11. Maybe there is no conspiracy, and the questions are unfounded, but it pretty clear that if a full investigation was to go ahead, heads would roll in Washington of the failure of intelligence. This is something that was avoided clearly.

So pardon me, if I find it hard to trust all the information regarding an event that shaped world policy so much in the past few years, coming from this government, considering the same government had few qualms about taking America into a illegitimate war.