i agree, although i liked his style(his shredding of Ollie North was classic-"you know all about compartmentalization Ollie" HAHA!). i also respected much of his JFK work and loved his book on the murder of Paul Wellstone. but to see hows he acting now is a real dissapointment to say the least.

Finally an area where I have some expertise to contribute. It can be proven fairly easily that no high energy space weapons were used on the twin towers.

1) The spacelift argument: There have been hundreds of secret payloads over the past half century, but no secret launches - a rocket launch is impossible to conceal. Furthermore, the lift capability of various vehicles is well known. This puts some serious limitations on what can be in space.

Imagine you are watching the only road that leads to a construction site. You count five trucks with twenty ton capacity that drove there. Even though the construction site is hidden, you know they aren't building a hundred thousand ton aircraft carrier there, because they only have a hundred tons of material to work with. There can't be any massive Death Stars in orbit, there just aren't enough mystery payloads to build anything massive in orbit.

2) Now with space there is another factor, most orbiting objects are easy to see, even with the naked eye, not to mention radar. The solar panels make excellent reflectors at dawn and dusk. But we will assume for a moment that this supposed weapons platform is a nuclear powered stealth satellite, covered with black radar absorbing material - whatever.

3) Then we have the problem of time on station. Assume the same disintegrator ray weapons platform destroyed both towers. There is a problem with that. If the platform was in low orbit, like the ISS, it would have traveled about 4000 miles between the destruction of the two towers. It couldn't have been over New York the whole time. Either you need two weapons platforms or you have to put your disintegrator ray on geosynchronous orbit. But that makes matters worse. Due to the mass of propellant required to reach geo, the mass that can be placed in geo orbit is only about a third of the mass that can be placed in low orbit.. So now you are talking about a platform under ten tons which can destroy two MASSIVE targets at 23,000 miles distance. Yeah, right.

4) Ok, back to the two platforms in low orbit theory. You still need a LOT of energy to disintegrate skyscrapers even at a distance of around 200 miles. Hard to do this with batteries. So most of the Star Wars fantasies dreamed of using nuclear explosions to fire an X-ray laser (this also destroys the orbital platform, but never mind, we already decided we had to use two platforms). Well, even if that could be done, it obviously wasn't done:

A) It would have produced a flash in the sky visible in daytime with the naked eye
B) The EMP would have fried electronics below, so no videos or digital photographs could have been made
C) The X-ray beam even if very well focused, the scatter would have fogged all the photographic film in Manhattan, so no photos from film cameras.
D) Every nation with gamma ray detectors would have been screaming bloody murder about the violation of the weapons in space treaty.
E) There would have been beautiful auroras over the northeast that night like you would not believe -didn't happen.

The space beam idea is NOT a scientific hypothesis, and is easily disproved. The advocates of such ideas are - at best - ignorant of science. For those who can be expected by their resumes to know some science, deliberate disinformation is the best explanation.

PS: In the real world this poster is an honors graduate of Caltech

Feel free to link or cut and post elsewhere.