Ann Althouse has the scoop about the University of Wisconsin – Madison teaching 9/11 denial as an Introduction to Islam class.
Here are some comments about the class from Kevin Barrett, founder of the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 truth, who will be teaching it:
“The physics of those collapses clearly could not have resulted from plane crashes and jet fuel fires with office materials.” Barrett says jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and says recent tests on melted steel from the building prove his theory that it was wired to collapse, by the Government.
Barrett says the Bush Administration is fooling the American public with the Adolf Hitler ‘Big Lie Technique’… ”Tell them a little lie and they’ll wonder about it – weapons of mass destruction in iraq was a relatively little lie – and people are getting called on it.” Barrett says. ”Tell em a big lie like 9/11 and they have a huge resistance to questioning it.”
Ann links to Jessica McBride’s blog (the radio show host who, I think, broke the story) with all the detail including the class syllabus.
There are a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists on the left, but to give their nutty views legitimacy by allowing Barrett to espouse them in a universtiy classroom setting beyond disgusting. The university is providing Barrett cover by claiming he has academic freedom, which is another sham since, as Ann points out, the university gave him that freedom by making him an academic in the first place.
(Jay Tea adds: the persistent commenter known as “.” has repeatedly posted copyrighted materials in their entirety in the comments, despite a warning not to do so. For that reason, I have taken the extremely rare (for me) step of deleting the offending comments and banning his IP from posting any further. Disagreeing with us is not only allowed, but welcomed; opening us up for legal liability on copyright-infringement matters will not be tolerated.
In other words: BLOOD FOR ODIN!)
My daughter dropped out of the University of Maine in Orono because she simply couldn’t handle the insane leftist tactics used by the professors. Her dream was to become the next Fox News correspondent.
In online posts (which are required for many classes) she and another young man were constantly criticized by students and professors alike for any views that did not correspond with their own. In fact, once she and the other young man mentioned that they were Christian and Republican, they were both asked by the professor to stop stirring the pot or drop the class.
One such issue occurred because they were told to watch the PBS Buster Rabbit show which highlighted two lesbians from Vermont raising a family. When my daughter and the other young man cited biblical scripture against homosexuality, they were called VERY damaging names by the other students, which went unnoticed by the professor. However, as soon as either one of them attempted rebuttal, the professor sent them emails telling them to stop, and threatened them with failure in the class if they did not.
She stuck it out for a year and almost had a nervous breakdown. She is now taking classes online from another university, and is doing well.
I got so carried away with my little story that I never even addressed this nutjob and his insanity. I honestly don’t know what to say. It reminds me of a story I heard recently – about a staunch liberal who was asked if she was concerned about all of the evangelicals and Catholics having huge families, possibly outnumbering the libs. Her response: “Let them have all the children they want. As soon as we get our hands on them in the public school system, they’ll be liberals”. I’m totally paraphrasing here from memory – but that about sums it up. Perhaps I even read it on wizbang? Long story short: I teach for the public school system at the adult level… but I HOMESCHOOL my own kids. Sad commentary, I know.
It is a good thing that he is not teaching something controversial – like the differences between men and women – he might have to fear for his job.
Bottom line, places like University of Wisconsin (and University of Maine) are jokes.
It won’t be too soon when these places are dismantled into housing or other uses and replaced by the likes of University of Phoenix On Line.
My son had a similar problem of lack of academic freedom at the University of MI. The Fem-Nazis there suppressed his speech and screwed with his grades when he tried to debate them in class. And he is a left-wing liberal! He had to take an extra semester to make up for the class he failed – and it turned him off to his previously avowed career in health care management due to the plurality of said folks in the Graduate Department he would have worked in.
I have done hours and hours of research on 9/11. Unfortunatley, I have come to the same conclusions. Those towers came down too fast for it to have been a pancake collapse. They fell nearly at freefall speed so the official story of one floor collapsing and hitting the next and so on is not possible, because objects can’t fall through steel and concrete as fast as they fall through the air. And that doesn’t even get into WTC 7, the 47 story building that most people don’t even know collapsed on 9/11. And then theres the hundreds of eyewitnesses saying they saw, heard, or felt explosions. And then theres the footage, where you can see explosions as much as 60 stories below where its collapsing! No doubt, there were bombs in the towers, and sadly that would imply an inside job, because 19 muslims with boxcutters arent sneaky enough to plant all those bombs and trick the entire mainstream media and 9/11 commision report into telling lies. If anyone disagrees, write me an email at [email protected]
Here’s a post about another denial problem, with a criticism of LaShawn Barber.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/prussian_blue_naacp.php
It seems denial exists on the left and the right.
Nick,
Cuckoo, Cuckoo!
Spin another tale.
If you wish to understand Professor Kevin Barrett’s views, then please visit this site below and watch all the lectures and videos.
This event was not as black-and-white as it appeared on the surface.
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/
A survey conducted in Wisconsin concluded 66% of people support the Professor’s right to teach his views in class and a full 76% support his right to those views.
View the information for yourselves and then decide. You can’t judge anything if you do not both understand and know the available evidence.
I think you owe those who died on 9/11 just a little of your time, if nothing else.
Nick,
You’re an idiot. And so is that nutjob professor. Good Lord. When did ‘academics’ decide to abandon reason for madness?
“When did ‘academics’ decide to abandon reason for madness?”
You are talking like there is some form of credible official account of the events.
There is not.
It turns out, once you read the report, that there is nos cientific substance and everything you “think” you know about 9/11, is nothing more than media spin.
NIST received 236 samples, over 1 year after the collapse of the WTC. They were forced to assume the building collapsed due to the impacts and fires.
There is no scientific evidence to support that conclusion, because the majority of the steel was shipped out of the country undr armed guard to be melted down in China…
This was BEFORE any investigation had begun.
Something stinks in DC…
Ya know, out of all the conspircies I’ve heard in my lifetime, I like this one the best. It beats JFK hands down. These whack jobs believe:
1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling.
2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)
3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)
4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don’t ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)
5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can’t plant some WMD’s to cover our ass when we need to)
Their conspiracy goes so deep I can see why they need a course to study it
Here they come, the 9/11 conspiracy network has been notified.
if anyone looks at the evidence then they will see. you can choose to deny it, but when you look at World Trade Center 7, that’s the smoking gun. Well actually theres many. I just chose to stick with reality. It was a controlled demolition. [email protected]
Yo, I was there with my kids hearing, then watching state sponsored terror. We are alive today no thanks to sceptics. I hope you all enjoy the comming police state. Israel loves our stupid debate!
Now, now, now. Nick is NOT an idiot.
Nick is dumb. Dumb cannot be cured, it is something you are born with, like red hair. Stupid can be corrected by education, but dumb is forever.
Give it up. Useless to even try to debate old Nick.
Hey Luke, argue with me! I’m a 15 year old from the Bay Area. If i’m so dumb, just tell me what I got wrong. Tell me how World Trade Center 7 collapsed. Tell me how 110 stories are supposed to have pancaked into each other in less than ten seconds. Next time you see a ten story building, imagine it fall in ONE second. Apparently you were born with ignorance, something that can be cured. I didn’t even mention the fact that Steven E. Jones, a physics professor, tested the steel and found thermate in it so there’s nothing to debate, except how to take the country we love back from people who are using it to put their nazi tactics to set up a police state. Maybe you’ll understand when the U.S. attacks itself again to go to Iran, which it could do any day now… although I think they are pretty sketched out with all the 9/11 Truth news recently. There are so many problems with the official story I could write a book about it. [email protected]
Where the heck have I been? I honestly didn’t think ANYONE could be idiotic enough to speculate that our own government did this to the WTC?!? And Flight 93? I guess all the cell phone calls to family and friends were also staged? And yet, you are the same people who say Bush is an idiot, yet he managed to plan this entire thing from NYC to the Pentagon to a field in Pennsylvania. Gee, if he’s that good, maybe you should change the rules so he can be our Supreme Leader until the end of time.
Holy CRAP? Do you people also believe that the Holocaust was a hoax? I’m in shock.
1. Cell phones dont work in airplanes at the height that plane was at (although the plane companies have put devices in that make ’em get a signal, kind of a silly thing to do if they worked so perfectly on 9/11)
2. bush is inbred, not involved, possibly aware. his dad is way deeper than he is.
3. no i dont believe the Holocaust was a hoax.
Candy, these folks have posted here before with the same link and the same “arguments” better described as paranoid ideation. Nothing to be shocked by at this point, just dismayed that due to our faltering mental health system, they do not receive the care they so desperately need.
Hey Luke, argue with me! I’m a 15 year old from the Bay Area.
A 15 year old from the Bay Area, educated in public schools, no doubt.
Pity. If it were stupidity, education would’ve helped a bit. Not public education of course, but like I stated above, “Dumb is forever”. Learn to live with it.
Bet you think Tricky Dick Nixon staged the moon landing too, right? See what I mean. I knew the answer already.
Nick – perhaps this will help you. Read this entire article from Popular Mechanics, which does a fine job of debunking conspiracies surrounding myths of 9/11, including your “controlled demolition” myth.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
This week were back to chimpy being the super mastermind evil villan, who masterminded the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Except he had his minions place the explosives in a way which would have the buildings fall in a perfect controlled explosive manner, (image of Homer Simpson slapping his head “doh”), thus blowing the whole conspiracy out of the water.
(Long, vaguely germane, copyrighted article deleted by editor; link left intact)
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/OPINION/207050320/1030/OPINION01
Nick, you are a fool. Stop listening to the voices in your head or I’ll sic Karl Rove and the Evangelicals on you.
I’m an Evangelical! Sign me up!
“1: That Bush sent in a crack team of explosives experts, past WTC security, building maint. engineers, office workers and janitorial workers for months while wiring the buildings, without anyone ever questioning why or what they were doing there. Then depended upon no other maint subcontractor to discover the explosives while doing their work above ceiling.”
Reply:
Jeb Bush was the head of security at the WTC…
“2: Flew remote controlled airliners into WTC without any airline ever missing a jet, employee, or customer. Then depended on the precision fall of both buildings upon detonation AFTER being hit by an airliner. (but decided to go with the missle option on the Pentagon.)”
Reply:
Nope…only a small group believe this…
“3: There is no Al Qaeda (cough)”
Reply:
Al-Qaeda is an intelligence asset…in other words, a branch of the CIA.
The CIA created Al-Qaeda…well documented.
“4: Flight 93 was blown up. (Don’t ask why you would blow up your own remote controlled airliner)”
Reply:
Seismic records show the plane to have crashed at 10:06am…the black-box recorder only covers up to 10:03…
There is 3 minutes of audio missing…
“5: Everyone involved has kept their mouth shut about the entire operation since day one. Not ONE leak. Not even a whisper. (but yet we can’t plant some WMD’s to cover our ass when we need to)”
Terrorist units across the world carry out hundreds, if not thousands of operations, in which not a whisper is heard before nor after.
You watch to much TV…
Go to this site:
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/
Watch ex-government officials pull apart the lies of 9/11 and the Iraq war…
That article was fantastic, thanks Mark.
I almost gave up reading this thread, with all the screeching primates posting in here. If you don’t have facts, try personal attacks.
I’ve never seen so many horribly pathetic cries for attention on one thread. Wow.
As for the “Professor”‘s comment – The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths.
Ummhmm, because revisionist and maybe even UofW-M history shows that the various religions have been so friendly towards on another up until then, I guess.
Seriously, Mark and Nick: you need to seek immediate psychiatric help for your delusions. Take Professor Barrett with you, too.
Tell you what Peter F…
See if you can find direct physical evidence that demonstrates that the WTC collapsed due to the impacts and fires…
Come back and post it here…
Good luck…because it doesn’t exist…the NIST report is based upon an assumption…
Its a fairytale.
Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying. Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked… numerous times. Peter F., what delusions? All i’m saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.
by the way mark, it was neil bush, not jeb. [email protected]
1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form “head of security at WTC.”
2) Marvin Bush, the current president’s youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000.
3) If it wasn’t airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?
4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn’t it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn’t plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?
5) We can’t keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals.
6) This is beyond insane. I’ve never seen anyone take Occam’s Razor and use it to slash their own throats before.
J.
BigMo,
Thanks for the link.
For controlled demolitions to have been a factor, there would have had to have been four weeks of physical work, including almost a full week of round-the-clock work done removing wall facades, drilling, and cutting in all major support structures.
So, nick, mark, and the rest of you lunatics out there, when you can explain why NOT ONE SURVIVOR has mentioned anything like that happening on Septemeber 10th or previous, you will remain in the land of FlatEarth-Faked Moon Landings.
I would like to point out a fact to anyone still reading this thread. The pancaking WTC towers can be modeled as a piston that, lacking an intact cylinder wall, expel compressed air with great force from each pancaking floor segment that would entrain dust, dirt, smoke, and even macroscopic items like furniture and bodies. That effect is easily mistaken for explosions.
As for the rest of it, I wonder if anyone has asserted that the guy on the grassy knoll was involved.
Ahem. that should be “until you explain. . .”
Guess the moonbats (ever wonder why we call ’em that) are asking us the age old question, “Who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes”?
These people are to be pitied. Dumb as rocks, dumb, dumb, dumb.
“1) Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida on 9/11. He was in no way, shape, or form “head of security at WTC.”
Sorry about that, I was thinking about him declaring marshal law in Florida on September 7th 2001…
http://proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm
“2) Marvin Bush, the current president’s youngest brother, had been a director of Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC. He left that company in 2000.”
So, he had connections to the security company and thus access pre-2000.
“3) If it wasn’t airliners that hit the three buildings, where the fuck did they go? Where are the passengers (several of whom used cell phones to describe their last few minutes)?”
That’s too speculative…
“4) If it were airliners that crashed into the buildings, isn’t it fortunate that the planted explosives started at the floors hit by the planes, and THEN progressed downwards? Did the ones planted above the point of impact fail, not go off, or were the conspirators so confident of their plan that they didn’t plant any explosives on the topmost floors above the impact points?”
That’s not difficult to achieve with a little fore-thought, also if you check out the video of the collapse on my site, you will observe the collapse began with the core giving way BELOW the impact zone…its this that causes the building to pull the exterior columns towards the building which results in the implosion event.
“5) We can’t keep a goddamned thing secret. Are you actually expecting a conspiracy of THIS magnitude to remain covered up, with all those people who MUST have been in the know (easily in the hundreds) all keeping the biggest secret to themselves? The first one to come forward with actual evidence would be set for life just on book and movie deals.”
I live in Northern Ireland…I’ve watched terrorist organisations keep secrets to the grave…
How many people were involved in developing the nuclear bomb?
Was that a secret conspiracy in which the US people had no knowledge?
It can be done.
“6) This is beyond insane. I’ve never seen anyone take Occam’s Razor and use it to slash their own throats before. “
Its clear you have not reviewed any of the evidence, nor do you grasp that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claims.
Its entirely fabricated. You, obviously, only know what you have seen on TV…
Read the evidence:
http://www.gieis.uni.cc
5) We can’t keep a goddamned thing secret.
Exactly Jay Tea, I suppose that the NYT must be involved too.
Mark, out of curiousity, what kinds of medication were you prescribed, and when did you stop taking it?
Remember, they also laughed at Bozo the clown, and he was more real than either your nutjob theory or the equally nutjob site promoting it.
This is beyond insane.
Indeed. And it answers the age-old question of: Do crazy people know they’re crazy?
Clearly the answer is a resounding “no”.
Show everyone the evidence John Irving…
Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact…
If you can’t, your obviously some form of nut who likes to repeat fairytales because they him feel good.
Nick:
Nobody has emailed me, im waiting for someone to disagree with me and actually try and disprove what im saying.
My friend, the onus is on you to prove to us what you’re saying, not vice versa. You’re the one championing alternate realities, so I think it’s high time we were offered IRREFUTABLE evidence, which we have not been.
Oh, by the way, the Popular Mechanics debunking article has been debunked… numerous times.
So a debunking has been debunked? That’s not how things work. No alternate theories were presented here, just measured scientific and logical research. I would like to see this “debunking”, however, feel free to post it. Since it apparently happened numerous times, it shouldn’t be hard for you to come up with.
Peter F., what delusions? All i’m saying is that there were clearly explosives in the towers, because if you 1. see exposions 2. witnesses saw heard and felt secondary explosions 3.physics professor finds the thermate in the steel, which is the combination of thermite and sulfur, perfect for slicing through thick steel. 4. the towers fell about the speed objects fall through the air so the official story of one floor hitting the next and so on is impossible.
1. So you’re telling me there were clearly explosives in the towers because you saw them? Do they teach you science and physics in highschool? Crack open a book.
2. I’m an eyewitness. I was there. I did not see or hear secondary explosions.
3. A physics professor found thermite in the steel? I’m impressed that he got to examine a piece of the steel. Who else had that opportunity.?
4. This is an assinine statement. Build a card house and then yank out a supporting card near the center. See what happens.
All you’ve offered is conjecture at best.
Looks like this guy has done his research on Democratic Underground when it comes to validating the WTC collapse.
A list of 115 omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers—including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC—are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta—such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances—that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed—an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”—a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel—that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel—made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner—even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras—including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike—could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family—all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period—were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart—were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command–even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”—although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference—although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36—in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon—one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim—made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them—that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
http://question911.livejournal.com/16174.html
Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility. There is direct physical evidence for a jetliner crashing into each of the towers. To predict an impact point with a jetliner’s maneuverability sufficient to prevent it from either disabling or instantly detonating premade charges that could only have been installed by ghosts is as impossible as a blind man performing open heart surgery successfully in five minutes during a hurricane.
Mark:
Please show us all the physical evidence proving the WTC collapse from the fires after the impact…
Please show us physical evidence that you graduated from highschool.
If you cannot, then I’ll just have have to say you didn’t. If you post a scan of your diploma, I’ll call it a forgery. If you cite sources, I’ll cite sources that say otherwise. See how easy this game is?
“Mark, my evidence is that what you suggest, and what your website implies, is a physical impossibility.”
Only in America… 🙂
This is a lot easier than you think…a lot easier.
Also, a plane impact will not detonate the explosives. C4 and semtex will simply burn in any fire like any other plastic explosive.
Watch the videos on this page and watch the molten steel/copper pour from the side of the building…
Part 2: 11th September 2001 & Molten Copper or Molten Steel
http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part2/index.html
This is not possible according to NIST’s physical evidence.
Screw that, Heralder.
Mark, post proof that you even EXIST, and are not some loser’s piss-poor attempt at a paranoid AI program.
Our trained staff of debunkers await your evidence…
J.