Hit piece from Southern Methodist University (home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library)
I'm reminded of how the halls of academia were poisoned with pseudoscientific propaganda in Nazi Germany. This guy also defends the official JFK story. Fortunately this guy leaves us his e-mail address. Let's blitz him folks!
Wacky theories show poor judgment
By Nathan Mitzer, Staff Columnist, nmitzner@smu.edu
Published: Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Updated: Tuesday, February 23, 2010
One week from today, Texas voters will select the Democratic and Republican party nominees for governor, concluding a seemingly endless primary campaign. The contest has been noteworthy in several respects, especially for the bitter battle for the Republican nomination between the sitting governor, Rick Perry, and an incumbent U.S. senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the last two weeks, however, it appears that Hutchison and her other opponent, Debra Medina, have either come down with a bad case of campaign fatigue or have proven themselves to be the proverbial “six fries short of a happy meal.”
It began on Feb. 12 when Medina was interviewed by Glenn Beck on his radio show. By positioning herself to the right of Perry, Medina, a political unknown several months ago, had picked up significant support and was running neck-and-neck with Hutchison. Both were about 10 points behind Perry. Beck asked Medina whether she agreed with accusations that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Expecting her to dismiss such suggestions as the fantasy of nut-job conspiracy theorists, Beck was taken aback when Medina instead answered, “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.” After the interview, Beck told his listeners that Medina’s response should disqualify her as a credible candidate. When Glenn Beck calls you out for crackpot inclinations, you know that you have entered political wacko-land. [Glenn Beck, the day will come where you will be as universally reviled similar to the way we now view Dr. Goebbels. - Adam]
The next day, as if to show that far-out musings should not be confined to the Republican contest, Farouk Shami, one of the two major candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, pretty much echoed Medina’s views. In an interview with Dallas TV station WFAA, Shami, in response to a similar question, opined, “We still don’t know who killed John F. Kennedy, who’s behind it. Will we ever find the truth behind 9/11? It’s hard to make judgments. I’m not saying yes or no because I don’t know the truth.” In the span of 24 hours, two of the five major candidates for Texas governor had become card-carrying members of the political lunatic fringe. Ever since, their poll numbers, especially Medina’s (Shami never polled higher than 10% against the overwhelming Democratic frontrunner, former Houston Mayor Bill White), have steadily dropped, evidence that the electorate deserves more credit than it is often given.
What is it about outlandish conspiracy theories that seem to attract those on either side of the political spectrum? There is not a scintilla of evidence that the 9/11 tragedy was anything other than what we know it was: a shocking surprise attack on the United States by forces loyal to Osama bin Laden. To suggest that America’s political leadership had advance knowledge of the attacks or supported or was complicit in their commission is a grotesque defamation not only of those who rallied the nation in the traumatic aftermath of 9/11 but also of the American troops now engaged overseas to ensure that such a calamity never again occurs.
For many, conspiratorial suggestions are conveniently employed for a variety of reasons: explaining away implausible occurrences, questioning official viewpoints, or advancing political positions. More than 46 years following the tragedy that occurred about five miles from our campus, nearly half of all Americans still believe that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. They cannot bring themselves to believe that a lone nebbish, a losers’ loser the likes of Lee Harvey Oswald could have been responsible for extinguishing Camelot and its young, charismatic president who, together with his telegenic family, had captivated America and much of the free world. In the eyes of these conspiracy theorists, forces much greater and more sinister (e.g. the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI, Lyndon B. Johnson, the Cuban government or any combination of the above) must have been responsible for one of the most tragic episodes in our history. This in spite of the absence of any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was the culprit. Incredible as it may seem, there are those who maintain that the Apollo moon landings of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s were staged on a giant Hollywood-like set to give the impression that men had actually walked on the moon. Many suggesting American complicity in 9/11 would not believe George W. Bush if he claimed that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.
While our constitution gives us the right to promote whatever goofy notions come to our minds, it is incumbent upon the rational electorate to reject those candidates whose judgments are as unsound as those recently on display in both gubernatorial primaries. Texas voters should do their duty next Tuesday by voting for the candidate of their choice--except for anyone named Medina or Shami.
Nathan Mitzner is a junior risk management insurance major. He can be reached for comment at nmitzner@smu.edu
[Oh don't worry Nathan, we will be reaching you for comment!]
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
Wacky Must Be Good, Then
I didn't know The 9/11 Commission Report was considered "wacky" by those who cling to the official 9/11 narrative. Well, let's see what The 9/11 Commission Report says about NORAD before 9/11 and on 9/11.
Before September 11, 2001:
"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."
The Day of September 11, 2001:
"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."
"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."
"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."
"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."
Now let's see what the Air Force, NORAD, and Popular Mechanics said about NORAD after September 11, 2001:
In 2004 the Air Force said, "Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward."
(http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/airdefense.htm)
In 2008 NORAD said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORAD’s role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America."
(http://web.archive.org/web/20080103124933/http://www.norad.mil/50/nutshe...)
In 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine said:
'"Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says [Major Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD]. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."' -- http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3
Now let's see what the Government Accountability Office in 1994 said about NORAD's true monitoring capabilities within the United States, "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:
1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;
2. tracking hijacked aircraft;
3. assisting aircraft in distress;
4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. -- http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151250.pdf
Looks like the GAO and The 9/11 Commission Report agree with each other that NORAD monitored all aircraft flying within the United States before and on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, that means Popular Mechanics magazine, the Air Force and NORAD have been caught in a giant lie, which means they are the wacky ones!
Kindly email Nathan Mitzer with the facts on NORAD.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
My 2 cents
This is what I wrote our buddy Nathan.
Good afternoon, Nathan. I have just finished reading your piece, and there is a number of things in there I find disturbing, but one line in particular really stands out as a testament to how little you have looked at the issue of the 9-11 terror attacks from an objective angle.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that the 9/11 tragedy was anything other than what we know it was: a shocking surprise attack on the United States by forces loyal to Osama bin Laden.
False.
I have attached a peer-reviewed scientific paper presenting such evidence. Please become familiar with it. It does not speculate who caused the attacks, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone to assume any parties responsible without a thorough, unimpeded investigation into all aspects of the attacks. The 9-11 Commission Report is riddled with unanswered questions that the victim’s family members have demanded answered, but have not gotten those answers.
Further, for you to insinuate that asking questions is insulting to our military personnel is ludicrous on it’s face. I am a former serviceman, and I think it is our duty as patriots to always question our leaders and demand answers and accountability. Again, I think a fair amount of research is necessary to gain proper perspective on the subject before going public with such an irresponsible assumption.
Please understand that I am an average American citizen that is concerned about the series of events after 9-11 that has led us to this precarious point in our country’s history. The fact that 9-11 was a pivotal event is undeniable. The question is truly if you are brave enough to follow the trail to whomever it may lead and hold them responsible for what they have done to us all.
Thanks!
David Nehring
I sent the nanothermite pdf file along with the message, hopefully he will have the guts to read it and understand it.
Thanks for the post, Adam!
Working Link to (s)Hit Piece
http://www.smudailycampus.com/opinion/wacky-theories-show-poor-judgment-...
I have to laugh...
This writer is junior risk management insurance major. He knows nothing about false flag events. If karma goes after him, his insurance company is in trouble.
Our North Texas 9/11 Group put on the Loose Change Final Cut film at a theatre a few years back. An SMU writer said that she was gonna come, but she was a no show. The SMU paper has received many press releases in the past, but nothing ever was printed.
Sidenote: Campus papers often will print "Letters to the Editor". Local college campuses can be a good venue.
The Email I Sent Off To Nathan Mitzer
Hi,
In reference to your article on wacky 9/11 theories, I didn't know The 9/11 Commission Report was considered "wacky". Let's see what The 9/11 Commission Report says about NORAD before 9/11 and on 9/11.
Before September 11, 2001:
"NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."--
(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf)...page 18.
The Day of September 11, 2001:
"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center." -- Page 20.
"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away." --Page 27.
"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground." -- Page 30.
"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it." -- Page 28.
Now let's see what the Air Force, NORAD, and Popular Mechanics magazine said about NORAD after September 11, 2001:
In 2004 the Air Force said, "Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward." -- (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/airdefense.htm)
In 2008 NORAD said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORAD’s role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America." -- (http://web.archive.org/web/20080103124933/http://www.norad.mil/50/nutshe...)
In 2005 Popular Mechanics magazine said:
'"Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says [Major Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD]. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."' -- (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3)
Now let's see what the Government Accountability Office in 1994 said about NORAD's true monitoring capabilities within the United States, "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes:
1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;
2. tracking hijacked aircraft;
3. assisting aircraft in distress;
4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and
5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. -- (http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151250.pdf)
Looks like the GAO and The 9/11 Commission Report agree with each other that NORAD monitored all aircraft flying within the United States before and on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, that means Popular Mechanics magazine, the Air Force and NORAD have been caught in a giant lie, which means they are the wacky ones! Why do you think Popular Mechanics, the Air Force and NORAD are lying? Why has no one in the main stream media pointed out these lies?
I hope the above research helps you in any forthcoming articles you may write on the subject.
Regards,
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC