Yet another junk article that deliberately misstates & misrepresents our 9/11 truth facts & evidence as straw-men, and then knocks the straw men-down.

They have already lost any form of credibility with their pancake theory and forgetting the fundamental structural reality of the core columns! I am tired of their fantasy... It should be called popular fiction.

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!

I never understood why the cruz of "9/11 truth" relied on the tower theories. It's like the JFK enthusists who obsess over the head shot back into the left frames, while missing the big picture.

I've seen ENDLESS circular back and forth arguments on the tower issue for a couple years ad nauseum, and it goes nowhere. It's like creationism vs evolution.

Hell, there may have been explosives in the sublevels, but the top chunk really fell from stress. Who knows, but notice there's certain points the "debunkers" never even attempt to "debunk"?

Christ that thing is like 75% broad generalizations and and silly associations... that's pretty much the only ammo they've got these days, sweeping derogatory statements and crazy comparisons like "did the shop owner raise his prices to pay rent or because there's a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world?" WTF?!!!!

We need to make a top 100 list of denier lines, with classics like:

"Every single one of your facts has been debunked a gadzillion times!"
"If there was a conspiracy, a bajillion people would have been involved!"
"So who planted the bombs, bigfoot or space aliens?"
"I masturbate to pictures of little boys and dead animals!"

Cockburn and his pals give us a few ones:
"I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse."
"There are plenty of real conspiracies in America. Why make up fake ones?"
"9/11 conspiracism stems from despair and political infantilism. There's no worthwhile energy to transfer from such kookery."

Good stuff.

A true sign of the decline of the Left is when Alexander Cockburn writes a lengthy diatribe on "9/11 conspiracy theorists" and argues almost the entire thing by allusion. This is like that. This reminds me of that. And so on.

There is a lesson here for Truthers: For god's sake, let go of the Pentagon. It leads nowhere. Notice how stooges like Cockburn harp on the Pentagon theories... every single time! Even if you remain agnostic about the Pentagon -- just say, "I'm not sure right now" -- you will do better arguing with people like Cockburn.

As for Cockburn's "scientists": Sweet crap, let go of the "hollow tube" description of the towers. It's a lie! How many goddamn photos of the construction of the towers does Cockburn need to see before he understands the towers were NOT hollow tubes.

And dammit, just read the NIST and FEMA reports. Stop referring to them as if their existence alone proves the official story. What does FEMA conclude about the collapses:

"With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse each tower could not be definitively determined." – FEMA BPAT, Executive Summary, p.2

Doesn't sound very conclusive. How about NIST? NIST could NOT replicate the collapses with models:

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…" – NIST, p. 143

FEMA studied WTC7. What did they find?

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

So, Alexander Cockburn, stop bloody lying about the scientific studies you say prove the skeptics are raving lunatics.

Cockburn also says a helicopter pilot knew 9 minutes before the first tower collapsed that it was going to collapse. Quoting the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse" (304).

9:59 is not 9 minutes before the south tower collapsed. Cockburn is lying. In fact, the report repeats the fact that the first responders did not know the towers would collapse:

"To our knowledge, none of the chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (302).

I could go on.

Goddammit, get David Ray Griffin in a room with Cockburn, tell Griffin to let go of the Pentagon material, and have at it.

A letter to JoAnn Wypijewski:

What would you have told Italian dissidents in the 70s and 80s if they’d dared to claim that Italian intelligence was supporting the neofascist terrorist bombings from 1969-1980 starting with Piazza Fontana bombing?

Is the prospect of a US government willing to kill its own citizens with bombs somehow more disempowering than a government willing to kill the species by failing to address Global Warming?

How do you account for the evidence of foreknowledge in light of the stated objections of the PNAC?

Finally, could you explain the difference between your conviction that the US was in no way complicit in the attacks and your typical 9/11 conspiracy theorists conviction that the US made every aspect of the event happen on purpose?

The Age of Irrationality Indeed

Here's how Garcia describes the WTC fires:

"The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent."

Here's what NIST actually said:

"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." – NIST, p. 180

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." – NIST, p. 181

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…" – NIST, p. 143

Furthermore:
~825ºC - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere

Tell me again about the 1100 C fires?

"All Democrats in the U.S. Senate except for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold voted for the original USA PATRIOT Act legislation. "

Just a general question here hoping someone can quickly perhaps in a few paragraphs explain what the left is. They don't seem to get much air time or perhaps the message is so inconsistent and varied I don't know what the hell to think. The right is transparent and ideological enough not to fool many with an IQ. But the left is confusing. Perhaps equally lost in their own rhetoric. After so many years of left politics, why do we still have a war on drugs, terrible education, classism, with globalization and big cooperations and big government and military and human rights abuse at an all time high. Clearly because they fail to do anything. Who knows... in the minds of most it's associated with being no fun. Reading a few articles on wikipedia about the 'left' and Democrats didn't help flesh it out anymore for me and sort of confirmed that no one really knows what to expect from them. Since I don't think our government functions anymore for the people what does it matter anymore stands for?

I should probably read Howard dean's book, and then read one by Newt Gingrich. But please if someone could save me the trouble. I'd probably only hate both parties more after that.

>The aim of this article is to supply some
> understanding of physics

He aims--and misses!

The myths we construct to express our understanding
> of the realities we are
> immersed in are limited by the range of our
> knowledge.

Such as the myth of the Al Qaeda fighters operating out of a cave in Afghanistan, foiling--without any assistance--the INS, FBI, CIA, and NORAD, and able to pulverize to dust three steel-framed skyscrapers on two tanks of jet fuel. Except that the "we" who constructed this myth wasn't actually "us" but rather the very people who have reaped the benefits of the events.

Experience has
> shown that if the evidence allows for several
> explanations to a given problem
> then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is
> most probably correct.
> This principle is called Occam's Razor

Agreed--for example, if an event exhibits one characteristic after another consistent with explosive demolition, and not consistent with jet fuel fires, then the explanation of explosive demolition is most probably correct. (And so I suspect William of Occam himself would have been a 9-11 truther.) And here this guy is supposedly arguing for an explanation with as few assumptions as possible, but presenting an argument full of assumptions!

trust
> in government has been
> broken, fear of its power is vivid, and
> understanding of the physical mechanisms
> of Nature is limited.

Particularly of those "mechanisms of Nature" which strangely seem to manifest themselves on one particular day but nowhere else before or since.

> NIST addressed the sequence of events and shifting
> of loads leading up to the
> failure that allowed the upper blocks to drop; it
> did not proceed to a
> detailed simulation of the collapses to the ground.
> NIST justified this on the
> grounds that there was sufficient energy in the
> descending blocks to crush the
> lower structures, once failures had occurred.

Oh--more than sufficient energy! as those "descending blocks" managed simultaneously to pulverize themselves to dust, meaning that the lower floors were successively "crushed" by a mass of dust. (Well, y'see, that dust was just falling so darn fast and had so much energy that--I mean, if force equals mass times velocity, then a reduction in mass could be compensated for by a comparable increase in velocity, and, ummm....)

the lower structure was
> only designed to hold up
> the weight above any given floor statically, not
> dynamically. The force
> imparted by the collision of the upper block was
> beyond the limits of the lower
> structure to resist. The lower structure was
> essentially crumbled by a "hammer"
> of descending material, and the mass of this hammer
> increased during the
> course of the collapse.

Again, a "hammer" composed of dust. And again, the point is that the lower floors exhibied ZERO resistance. The "limits of the lower structure to resist" is limited indeed in the official theory--to the point of being essentially non-existent.

> The controlled demolition hypothesis for the
> collapse of the World Trade
> Center buildings is described at length in a
> Wikipedia article ("_Controlled
> demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World
> Trade Center_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_co...
> Trade_Center) ,"
> The popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories (also
> outlined in a useful
> Wikipedia entry)

Naturally he finds these Wikipedia articles "useful" as such Wikipedia entries typically manifest the same patronizing, condescending, gatekeeping, establishment-buttressing biases as one finds in this article.

It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert
> would time his
> surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the
> aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly
> be absolutely certain that the impact fires would
> even last an hour.

How is this supposed to refute the critics of the official theory?! It's quite a rhetorical trick to imply that an adversary is conceiving the "inconceivable" when we've done no such thing. As is well known, and widely cited by 9-11 truth activists, the collapses occurred less than an hour (56 minutes) after collision in the case of the South Tower and an 1 hour and 42 minutes after collision in the case of the North Tower. Who said anything about explosions occurring "hours after the airplane impact"? They obviously didn't.

no demolitions
> expert in the world would be willing to promise his
> client that he could
> bring down a tall building with explosions
> guaranteed to be indistinguishable
> from the effects of an aircraft impact.

Maybe that's because these effects are quite distinguishable, as critics of the official theory are constantly pointing out--and I don't know of any such critic who has claimed that such a foolish promise was ever made by the demolitions experts to their clients in this case. Basically, the line of argument in the preceding passage boils down to the perverse position that the exposure of fraud somehow proves that it could not have been fraud. It maintains, in effect, that the official theory cannot be as absurd as its detractors claim it is, simply because criminals would never carry out their crimes if they were going to have to rely on absurd, implausible stories to throw the public off their track. Talk about assumptions! Haven't they ever heard anything about the special force and effectiveness of the Big Lie? And thanks to the large public capacity for denial and the steadfast willingness of corporate media and gatekeeping "alternative" media to prop up the official line without ever subjecting it to scrutiny, the price of relying on absurd stories to cover ones tracks has possibly never been lower.

Back to the matter of "aims"...

> The aim of this article is...so that readers can
> expand their range of rationality and hence their
> political maturity.

Yeah, sure! Obviously, the purpose of this article is to reassure those readers who still buy into the official conspiracy theory that they are more rational and politically mature than those of us who reject it.

Brothers and sisters in Truth -

Please take this fairly transparent hit piece as a very strong indication that the perps are getting very worried and let's keep doing our thing.

Let Dr. Jones, Jim Hoffman and others critique Manuel Garcia Jr's attempt to obfuscate the laws of physics, then we can rain email down on him citing their critiques and letting him know that all those involved in the ongoing coverup will end up in Leavenworth.

As we continue to increase our numbers we are going to see a greater effort to counter our progress in a variety of ways and at an ever increasing tempo. The easiest way to describe this is by quoting Gandhi:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you and then you win."

While they still try to ridicule the truth (and they will to the bitter end, negative politics is their #1 tool), they are now trying to counter the actual science with a major push on WTC 7 by creating their own science to give their shills more "credible" tools to fight us with.

We are getting to the serious fight stage right now. Fox hiring Mancow is one sign (expect more junk from him), this series in Counterpunch is another. Do not be surprised if we see some more strange "meltdowns" within the Truth movement, just keep plowing ahead educating and growing our grassroots. Our diversity is and will always be our main strength.

It is time that we increase the pressure in the media, we need to identify and focus on certain radio talk shows for concentrated action and also increase the tempo of other public activities to break into the MSM.

I will be posting more on this very soon.

Once we get a foothold in the MSM, the dynamic created by the Truth movement will be truly amazing. They will counter with a limited hangout option, like hanging NORAD and Rice, but by this time too many will know enough to not settle for an Iran/Contra style escape act.

As far as tactics go, let them play the Pentagon card all they want (they are certainly cooking up a great Flight 77 video to splash the MSM with when they really need it), and stick to WTC 7, the Towers, Flight 93, Mineta, NORAD's failure, PNAC, William Rodriguez, etc. This is like a boxing match, keep switching it up on them, don't buy their feints and remember we have truth and physics for our unbeatable one-two punches.

I would like to second the suggestion of a previous poster that we need to frame the opposition as the irrational conspiracy nuts as they are increasingly left with only the most ridiculous arguments to support the OCT.

We really do need to start coordinating our activities on a regional/national level to take this to the next level. More on this soon, too.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, brothers and sisters.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

It would seem from Garcia's explanation of the collapse, that he was able to pick through the rubble and examine the evidence left behind. How else could he explain in great "detail" how these structures failed.

What a load of bollocks. Pure hypotheses.

Keep going evreryone, the quote from Ghandi is a great one...

I just wish there was more info on 7/7 for us to get our teeth into in the UK.

now realizes it's war.

Seriously wow what great journalism the NIST report to explain the "science" behind WTC 1 and 2 and diesel fuel fires to explain the collapse of Building 7. I've never heard that before. I was actually excited for a second I thought I might hear some new far-fetched theory for how the towers collapsed. Instead it's just a re-hash, and a lazy one at that. My favorite part was when he claimed that the 12000 gallons of diesel had the same energy as 330 kilos of dynamite or whatever he said I cant bare to read it again. Ya, the same heat energy as dynamite, but none of the explosive power. What a brilliant scientific mind. I'm not even a scientist and I understand the difference.

No mention of concrete pulverization, heat currents of dust and debris in Manhattan, the 99 day underground fire, the rapid speed of the collapses. He actually claimed we were advocating a pancake collapse. Way to do your research Alex. The only decline you have documented here is your own.

Man Alex Cockburn is a lunatic. You would think after having his ass handed to him by Michael Berger he would come to his senses. I couldn't even read this whole article it was so rife with logical fallacies (straw men, begging the question, faulty use of authority, ad hominems, non sequiturs, etc.). I like how he claims his friend saw pictures of the pentagon being hit by a 747 and we should just take his word for it. And how he claims the twin towers "pancaked" because they were poorly built by corrupt New York politicians. For all of Garcia's citing of the NIST reports you think Alex and Manuel would realize the NIST is no longer claiming the twin towers pancaked. And why does Alex think a government scientist who makes weapons is someone people would find credible? Alex has really gone of the deep end sticking to his defense of the 9/11 Commission Report. His whole tirad is quite estonishing. Alex probably doesn't believe governments practice false flag terrorism whatsoever. I think Alex just needs a girlfriend. Finding a girlfriend must be hard when your bat shit crazy though.

The book "Debunking 9-11 Myths" claims that the hijackers purchased GPS units and put in the coordinates of their targets. But, the book was thin on detail. Didn't say how they knew this, didn't quote store personell, didn't talk about recepts, etc. The book said Atta MAY have been at the WTC on 9-10, taking a final reading. Didn't, once again, have any support for that statement. Where the book does provide support material, it is usually the 9-11 Commision Report that is quoted. Which is very circular.

I can't believe this section in Alexander Cockburn's piece: "The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow (...) the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength." (2nd paragraph below). Nuts!

..................
Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarize the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down.

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

"For their interior bracing, the thin-walled tubes of the Trade Center towers depended primarily on the interior floors being tied to the outer wall shells. These floor beam structures were basically open web joists, adequate for the floor loads normally to be expected. These joist ends rested on steel angle clips attached to the outer walls.

"As the floors at the level of airplane impact caught fire, the open web joists, which could not be expected to resist such fires, softened under the heat, sagged and pulled away from their attachments to the walls. Their weight and the loads they were carrying, caused them to drop onto the next lower floor, which was then carrying double loads also becoming exposed to the heat. Then that floor collapsed, and so it went. But as the floors dropped, they no longer served as bracing for the thin-walled main tubes.

"This loss of bracing permitted the walls to buckle outward in successive sections and thus the house of cards effect.

"There was no other major bracing as would be encountered in a more conventional type of structure, or as might have been introduced in the design if one feared the potential loss of the floors. There were no stiff horizontal trusses in the perimeter to act as bracing ribs every few floors. There was no system of vertical trusses to provide any integrity, not was there anything that could be considered a frame or "skeleton" of columns and attached girders to keep the tube intact."

You can search Counterpunch's archives and find several mentions of US complicity in 9/11 by its writers. Paul Craig Roberts has written several himself.

There's even a positive review of "The New Pearl Harbor" on the site.

It's like they are of two minds: on the outside, their official posture is hostility toward the suggestion of complicity. But underneath, they seem to realize it's entirely plausible. Just bizarre.

Have we been "debunked" again?

Did they cover this? How about this?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

it is no more anti-semetic to speak out against the israeli gov't than it is anti-american to speak out against the us gov't. this man has done his research and frankly, makes a lot of you arguing about collapsing towers look quite silly.
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388

Classic 9/11 baiting by debunkers. As with the rest of the debunker crowd, CP tries to draw us into a fruitless debate over the physical evidence, while ignoring the mountain of powerful evidence for US complicity. Try getting these people into debate about the war games, the money trail, drugs & oil, the "homeland security" gravy train, insider trading, or any one of many other subjects that all point in the same direction. They avoid these topics like the plague, claiming they are "not evidence."

Don't take the bait! Let them rant on about the WTC, but keep hammering them with these other questions.

I don't see conspiracies that don't exist. I worked with metal my whole working career. I worked next to an aneeling oven whose express job was heating up steel to temperatures that would soften or aneal it. You will never convince me that in less than one hour a kerosene driven fire would bring those buildings down. That article is total bullshit. The only thing this article convinces me of is that Cockburn is a traitor.
If you are sincere in your convictions about this event you wouldn't be trying to shove it under the rug. We all know that the people in the 9/11 investigation were compromised before the start.
I will only be satisfied after every aspect of the whole affair comes under a microscope and is investigated till there can no longer be a shred of doubt about the results.

about video footage of molten steel pouring from the side of tower 2. It really irritates me that these "debunking" articles don't cover all of the relevant evidence. Although I don't feel that this in itself constitutes yet another conspiracy--namely, that we're dealing with shills--I think it does shed light on the fact that these people have at least some sort of vested interest in maintaining the official conspiracy theory. They can't believe that we could do it. Not we, really, but they. It reminds me of arguments I've had with devout theists. They treat the argument as some sort of affront to their worldview as opposed to a series of genuine questions aimed at finding the truth through the bullshit. Garcia refuses to even use the word "molten" to refer to the rubble dredged from the basement levels. It's a pathetic excuse for an argument piece. The guy is even a weapons scientist...clearly a nationalist on some level.

"Let us pretend that the framework of the building is made of "ironcrete," a fictitious mixture of 72% iron and 28% concrete. This framework takes up 5.4% of the volume of the building, the other 94.6% being air. We assume that everything else in the building is combustible or an inert material, and the combined mass and volume of these are insignificant compared to the mass and volume of ironcrete. I arrived at these numbers by estimating volumes and cross-sectional areas of metal and concrete in walls and floors in the WTC Towers."

Clear disinformation tactics, but funny! It reminds me of one of my favorite ytmnd's...

http://tomahawk.ytmnd.com/

You ALL did a fantastic job of illustrating Cockburn\'s point of the wacko, willful ignorance, and outright stupidity of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Every time someone publicizes your stupidity, you all stumble over each other to be the FIRST to show how stupid you all REALLY are.

No wonder the 9/11 Truth Movement wants so much MSM publicity, just so you can show the real world that you really ARE as nutty and irrational as we already know you are.

Again, congratulations for illustrating Cockburn\'s points so well!

SUBJECT: Wrong

"Your conclusions are in dispute and not settled, but that's not what inspired me to write.

You conflate "conspiracy" with the demolition claim, as if the two were synonymous.

With grotesque ignorance of what happened that day, you are in no position to make that call.

Did you know that Mohamed Atta received $100,000 on the orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence (who just happened to be meeting with high level administration officials before and after the 9-11 attacks)? (Chossudovsky)

And that no mention of this appears in any investigation released to the public?

Or that Atta's "flight school" (although he already had pilots licenses from several countries) was a drug smuggling operation? A plane with 43 pounds of heroin was busted at Orlando airport, yet the pilot was not prosecuted. (Hopsicker)

Further, that in July, two months before 9-11, George W. Bush, his entire team including secret service was moved out of a high rise hotel in Genoa Italy at the G-8, because of a "KNOWN AL QAEDA PLOT TO ASSASSINATE BUSH AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS" (LA TIMES 9-27-01) by "hijacking a commercial jet and crashing it into the summit." So what was happening in that classroom in Florida?

1. KNOWN
2. AL QAEDA
3. PLOT
4. ASSASSINATE
5. BUSH
6. HIJACKING
7. COMMERCIAL JET
8. CRASHING IT INTENTIONALLY

No, you don't know shit about September 11th. And you shouldn't be pretending that you do."

B I G P. S.

9/11 TRUTH ACTION, JANUARY 3RD., DC.

People are interested! Meria Heller is sending this out on her show's mailing list. We could actually make a difference.

Please consider this carefully.

9-11 TRUTH ACTION: Burn your copy of the 9-11 Commission Report in front of Congress on January 3rd, 2007

Seize the moment with a new tea party for the new millenium.

The 9-11 Truth Movement should converge on the new business as usual 110th Congress, and bring as much media and independent video as possible. As Nancy Pelosi plays footsie with George W. Bush, the movement will burn a giant stack of 9-11 Omission Commission reports outside the building.

This is the time. This is the opportunity. If you can get to the US Capitol on January 3rd with a copy of the 9-11 Commission Report (printed off the internet, or purchased), then make a huge bonfire. Challenge the congress to see the movement. Challenge them to acknowledge the crowds. Challenge them to respond.

Please pass this to everyone in the 9-11 Truth Movement. Time is of the essence. January 3rd, 2007 is when the new Congress seizes power.

As far as I know, burning the flag is First Amendment protected speech. Therefore burning this state sponsored collection of lies should also fall under First Amendment protected speech, as well as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a NON-VIOLENT and PEACEFUL action to petition the US Congress for a redress of grievances, so they will reinvestigate September 11th, 2001. The bonfire should be done in a safe, open area and in a responsible manner with no chance of property damage or injury to anyone, preferably outside of the tight security zone directly surrounding the Capitol building.

TV and print media reporters will be there to cover the changing of the guard in Congress. Their attention is crucial.

PS.

For this protest in Washington, DC to be a success, it's going to take at least several dozen -- better several hundred -- persons to participate (a million would be nice :). Please forward the info on to your lists and friends in the region.

I realize that some don't agree with this tactic. However, think how happy you'll be if this action gets broadcast everywhere, upstages the Congress, and Congresspersons start getting asked numerous questions about the failings of the 9-11 Commission Report as a result.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/