November 01, 2006

John Kerry: Moron

If we could only count on Democrats to shoot at terrorists with the same fervor they have for shooting their own feet. Despite the fact that he has inferior academic credentials to George Bush, there are apparently some people who think that John Kerry was the smarter candidate last time around. However, not only did the dumb bastard blow the 2004 election, with his remarks yesterday he may very well have screwed up Democrats' chances in 2006:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

If he wasn't an inch away from treason with these remarks, I'd thank him for his contribution. (Also, his assertion is untrue.)

It's that kind of blind, elitist arrogance that will keep them out of power for years to come.

Posted by Sterling at 01:56 AM GMT

As opposed to the blind, elitist arrogance that decided we should invade Iraq and everything would be just peachy.


Posted by: Gherimiah on November 1, 2006 01:11 PM

That's the best you got, Gherm?

Posted by: Sterling on November 1, 2006 01:50 PM

That kind of attitude implies your post was worth the effort.

They feel a bit hollow these days. Are you just going through the motions? You find an obscure quote from a politician no one listens to anymore, you haphazardly slap the assertion 'treason' to it, without even to bother to draw the poorly considered lines of logic that led you to this conclusion. We can't fill in those blanks, Sterling. It takes an especial sort of inanity to do it, and we need you. Your country needs you. We have to hold up someone as justification for democracy and free speech. Someone who is so ignorant that they are self-parodying: their right to free speech is best expressed by demanding everyone else have that right stripped away. You are the pinnacle of tail eating self-aggrandizement. Because if you stop, the terrorists will have won.

Posted by: 99 on November 1, 2006 03:49 PM

Senators have to swear a thing called an "oath of office", and I can't see how blanket disparagements of active duty combat troops in wartime is consistent with its provisions. So yes, he has broken his oath and betrayed his obligations, willfully.

And I'm puzzled that you think the most prominent Democrat in the U.S. - a sitting U.S. Senator and the most recent presidential standard-bearer - is obscure. I'm not sure what Democrat is not obscure by that measure.

Posted by: Sterling on November 1, 2006 04:51 PM

You obviously don't understand treason or inches.
He's guilty of trying to perform stand-up comedy while a politician, that's about it. He rushed his delivery and blew the punch line. Big deal.

Posted by: Rance on November 1, 2006 06:24 PM

John Kerry issued a press release addressing the furor that resulted over this comment:

I think that this is all a lame, late attempt at moral indignation and outrage to motivate the Republican base. But even by the low standards of right wing talk show and weblog punditry, it's underwhelming.

But to you who would call this "an inch away from treason," I'll remind you:

John Kerry: Volunteered for Vietnam, decorated war veteran.

Dennis Hastert: dodged draft
Tom Delay - dodged draft
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt: dodged draft
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: dodged draft
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY: dodged draft
Rick Santorum, R-PA: didn't serve
George Felix Allen: didn't serve
Trent Lott: dodged draft
George W Bush: served in the Texas National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam; completed four years of a six year committment.
Dick Cheney: deferments, the last by marriage. "Had other priorities than military service"
Karl Rove: dodged draft.

Posted by: Sam on November 1, 2006 06:41 PM

Robert Sterling: Didn't sign up for Iraq on account of having weak ankle syndrome, compulsive wanker

Posted by: Sam G on November 1, 2006 07:33 PM

The reason this is a big deal is that many Americans have long suspected that it is common for Democrats to harbor negative feelings about the military itself as well as military personnel.

So Kerry's slip is not taken as an error so much as an admission that he shares negative feelings about the troops, and a validation of Democrat hostility to military culture.

Posted by: Sterling on November 1, 2006 08:13 PM

when I read your snip, I immediately assumed he was referring to the leadership, not the troops. As a former decorated solider, I trust kerry understands that not one single soldier is in Iraq because of poor eduction, nor excellent education. They are all there because they do their job very well -- serve the commander in chief.

Only one person can be blamed for the fiasco in Iraq. There is nothing unclear about this in Kerry's statement.

Posted by: 99 on November 1, 2006 09:28 PM

Even though Kerry's statement's being taken waaaaay out of context, he is still a moron. He should've just said he didn't mean it the way it came out (obviously true), and that he's sorry for the misunderstanding. How hard is that?

And that article you point to, Sterling, about how the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, self-appointed "myth buster", debunks myths about recruits ... interesting that he either stupid "facts" or no data at all.

BTW, Sam, the real reason Sterling hasn't served has nothing to do with the condition of his ankles. It's because of his issues with authority. Isn't that obvious? Sterling, care to deny this?

I would like to see some statistics on ex-military personnel's employability say 4 to 8 years post-service. Recruiters are always selling recruits on traveling the world and being taught valuable skills. But how many of those skills are transferable to the real world? Yes, there are some (journalists, procurement officers, cooks) but there are a whole lot of others (weapons specialists, submarine sailors) that have no value/application in a job market outside of defense contracting. Plus, they've all learned the "yes, sir" way of life when most professional jobs encourage debating issues with your boss and creative thinking (vs. strictly following orders).

Let's say we have a soldier who's managed to get out after only one tour (although during time of "war", are they letting these guys out?). He's now 22 and taking his GI Bill money and going to college. When he's done, he's 26 and competing for jobs with 22 year olds. Definitely at a distinct disadvantage. My point is most people know this and that if they decide to serve their country they not only risk dying but when they get back, having a hard time getting a job. And the military does little to help its soldiers transition professionally and socially into non-military life.

So who goes into the military then? Not any of you middle class white boys, not me, neither of my little brothers or any of my friends. Mostly those who have few alternatives.

Posted by: michelle on November 1, 2006 11:17 PM


Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 12:20 AM

I'm actually with Herr Sterling on this one. There are plenty of dumb-dumbs in the US armed forces. I sometimes meet them in bars in Lan Kwai Fong or Wanchai when the US 7th fleet is in town. And I've interacted with them a little in Itaewon. But most of them didn't strike me so much as stupid as simply young and ignorant about the wider world.

Earlier in life I had the pleasure and...cheesy as it sounds...honor to work with some former Naval and Marine officers in Washington, DC. One was a former marine colonel from Wheeling, West Virginia, who had turned into a military journalist, for whom I did research; the other was a former commander of the battleship Iowa who now ran a think tank, and I served as a sort of aid. These were some of the smartest people I've ever met, not to mention among the nicest; and also very cultured.

They may be a minority in the services but...let's put it this way. A lot of foreigners love New York City; I sometimes hear the refrain that it's "not really America". To which I reply, it may not be similar to much of America, but it is indisputably a product of America. These classy dudes in the military may not be representative of the entire institution but they are nonetheless an extension of it.

So when I think of Kerry, a man I voted for, make those kinds of remarks, intended or not, I feel like it was an enormously stupid thing to do.

Posted by: Jame on November 2, 2006 01:16 AM

Jame: did you vote for him because you thought he was quick of wit? Did you see him on the Daily Show last month? That man would strike out in tee ball.

It's interesting that Sterling leans on poor turns of a phrase when the man he idolizes patented the butchering of basic English. Bush better hope the English first crew never succeeds, since he will have to return to grade school.

But Kerry, orator? Never. If you hung your vote, on that, man, I have to rethink your embrace of trends years out of date as the result of something other than relative distance from the white hot center of the universe that is NYC.

Posted by: 99 on November 2, 2006 04:42 AM

Can't say I take Sterling's line on treason, but am pretty much with him on the rest of it. Bloody daft and insulting thing to say, all the worse for him being an ex-soldier himself. Moron.

Posted by: murray on November 2, 2006 04:50 AM

What, now we're picking on people who lack a little hand/eye coordination? Weak ankles, speech impediments. What's next - hairy people?

Posted by: michelle on November 2, 2006 03:40 PM

Sterling, don't forget, John Kerry was in the millitary, unlike W. What he was vaguely trying to do, though you can tell that he didn't write the speech (none of the politicians do these days - slackers) or else he might have been able to recover if he understood the thinking, was suggest gently that if we continue on much longer in the kitty litter box of a country, that a draft is going to become mandatory. And yeah, I do believe that the draft may just come back if we can't find enough bodies to fill the boots before long. Treason? Come on Sterling, try a little harder next time, please. Why don't you write something about why Judy Barr Topinka is a superior candidate for Governor in Illinois? That would at least be a challenge for you to do.

Posted by: Sanford on November 2, 2006 06:40 PM

Sanford - George W. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard (which belongs to the set of "the military") and John Kerry joined the U.S. Naval Reserve. As strategies to avoid winding up on the ground in Vietnam, Kerry's was more likely to work, if for no other reason than that the Navy mostly stays in the water. (The vast majority of Navy POWs were pilots.) But he had bad luck and wound up in Vietnam, regardless. He quickly accumulated Purple Hearts for minor injuries and at three got sent home. There are some who believe he sought out three Purple Hearts for the explicit purpose of getting sent home, however he clearly joined the Naval Reserve in the first place to avoid the draft.

Unlike Kerry, it's not clear Bush was trying to avoid service in Vietnam - what is clear is that he wanted to be a pilot (like his father) and the USAF wouldn't guarantee that outcome. The Texas ANG did guarantee it, so that's the course he chose. Had the plane model on which Bush was qualified not been removed from USAF service (shortly after Bush joined the Texas ANG) he might very well have been sent to Vietnam.

99 - What Kerry did was tell us what he really thinks. This is not the first time he's disparaged the military.

Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 08:41 PM

By the way, the proof that Kerry's remark is important is that the New York Times misled its readers Tuesday about what Kerry said, and is outright lying to them today.

Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 08:52 PM

Sterling, are you incapable of seeing why the snip your provided contains the inference of ending in Iraq was because your boss didn't study hard enough in school?

There might be more, contextually, that proves your larger point, but you snipped and made point. I was just responding to that.

I haven't bothered with reading more of his speech because he's absolutely marginal, just like Al Gore. Failed presidential candidates are immediately dead weight. People like Bob Shrum keep propping them up for fees, but people like Bob Shrum are losers too.

Posted by: 99 on November 2, 2006 09:06 PM

Here's the prepared text of what Kerry was supposed to say:

It’s great to be here with college students. I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.

Here's what he ended up saying:

I’m glad to be here with you, I really am, thank you for the privilege of coming here. We’re here to talk about education, but I want to say something before that – you know education – if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart – you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

It's pretty obvious that he simply blew the delivery of a pretty lame joke, which isn't surprising at all considering how stiff he is. I don't like Kerry, I wish he'd just go away, but he wasn't intending to make fun of the troops.


Posted by: sac on November 2, 2006 09:07 PM

What's even better is that Sterling's on source validates just dupe he is for wingnuts

Posted by: 99 on November 2, 2006 09:30 PM

What "he was supposed to say", sac? Where's that from? No source is indicated. And even if it is genuine, which I doubt, the essence of a slip is often that someone gives away what he really thinks, instead of saying the socially or situationally acceptable words he was "supposed to". Kerry has slandered the U.S. military repeatedly throughout his long post-Vietnam self-promotion.

99 - I'm supposed to take my cues from John Derbyshire? I've actually corresponded with the man from time to time but I certainly haven't granted a blanket deferment to his judgment. He's wrong on this, as he's wrong on any number of issues related to Iraq.

Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 09:53 PM

Sterling, W may have been in the Guard, but he didn't serve his full commitment, and should have been dishonorably discharged, yet wasn't. I'm sure his family didn't have a thing to do with it. Jesus man, don't you see. Or do you need me to quote you line and verse of why he should have been given a dishonorable discharge. Schmuck.

Posted by: Sanford on November 2, 2006 09:54 PM

Well, the second link from your previous comment uses the same text to make a point. Is that post now unreliable as well?

Also, CNN uses it here.

The Army Times quotes it here.

And numerous other places.

Posted by: sac on November 2, 2006 10:05 PM

Were there irregularities in Bush's service? Nothing that stands out to me. The conclusion of Bush's service had a lot to do with the phasing out of the F-102, the plane he was trained on.

You're basing your whole charge, by the way, on inferences from records that were available in 2000. You're saying "there's no record of Bush doing this, and therefore Bush didn't do it." But 30 years is a long time and records can get lost or be destroyed.

Bush has opened all his records, by the way, and more were discovered just a few years ago. Kerry has yet to unseal his military file.

Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 10:15 PM

sac, I used that link as evidence of unreliability. My guess is that this is a document released by Kerry after the fact, which of course makes it useless.

He said what he said. It's consistent with things he's said in the past.

Posted by: Sterling on November 2, 2006 10:24 PM

99: No I didn't vote for Kerry because he was of quick wit, and I don't mean to say I regret voting for him because of recent statements. I mentioned that to underline the fact that I'm not a Bush supporter, or someone unlike certain posters around here who would go after silly details to smear him. Joke or no he has given Bush an easy dodge in the run up to the election, and that was stupid. Although I don't think at this point the Republicans will be able to take advantage of the slip, and most Democrats (Clinton et al) have been quick to denounce Kerry's remarks.

Posted by: Jame on November 3, 2006 02:16 AM

Hey, I understand. I had no expectation that he wouldn't do something like this since he flubbed the religion/abortion question in the second (?) debate. That was so bad, I almost decided to vote minor party (until that election, I hadn't voted for a Democrat in 10 years -- one of the great benefits of NYC), and I steeled myself to the inevitability of him choking on lines indefinitely. I don't know why they let him out in public. I was just wondering if you thought otherwise until now.

Posted by: 99 on November 3, 2006 04:42 AM

Want to make John Kerry go away? has an open letter and petition to the Senator asking him refrain from seeking the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination and to cease speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party. Check it out.

Posted by: Scott Pope on December 4, 2006 07:19 AM

"If we could only count on Democrats to shoot at terrorists with the same fervor they have for shooting their own feet."

Speaking of terrorists, let’s take a few moments and look at some of the details of the horrible event that precipitated the "war on terror" and around which America’s foreign policy has been inextricably wrapped ever since.

One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch, with someone who was there when he was attempting to fly a small airplane saying that Hanjour was so clumsy that he was unsure if he had driven a car before. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports after Mohammed Atta supposedly leaves two rental cars at two impossibly far-removed locations. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name ("Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham"), more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that doesn't look like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces most no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Further making themselves look guilty, the Bush administration steadfastly refused for over a year to allow a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed, only agreeing to it on the conditions that they get to dictate its scope, meaning it was based on the false pretense of the "official story" being true with no other alternatives allowed to be considered, handpicked all its members making sure the ones picked had vested interests in the truth remaining buried, and with Bush and Cheney only "testifying" together, only for an hour, behind closed doors, with their attorneys present and with their "testimonies" not being recorded by tape or even written down in notes. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastic far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

Debunking Popular Mechanics lies:
someone else debunking Popular Mechanics crap:
still more debunking Popular Mechanics:
and still more debunking of Popular Mechanics:

Popular Mechanics staff replaced just before laughable “debunking” article written:
another neo-con 9/11 hit piece explodes, is retracted:
Professor Steven Jones debunks the N.I.S.T. “report” as well as the F.E.M.A. one and the 9/11 commission "report":
N.I.S.T. scientist interviewed:
F.B.I. says no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 which is why his wanted poster says nothing about 9/11:
Fire Engineering magazine says important questions about the Twin Tower “collapses” still need to be addressed:

Twin Towers’ construction certifiers say they should have easily withstood it:
USA Today interview with the last man out of the South Tower, pursued by a fireball:
Janitor who heard explosions and escaped has testimony ignored by 9/11 whitewash commission:
Janitor starts speaking out about it and his apartment is burglarized, laptop stolen:
Firefighters tell of multiple explosions:
Eyewitnesses tell of explosions:
Interview with another firefighter telling of explosions:
Firefighter saw “sparkles” (strobe lights on detonators?) before “collapse”:
Other eyewitnesses talk of seeing/hearing explosions:
Surviving eyewitnesses talk of multiple explosions there:
Cutter charge explosions clearly visible:
The pyroclastic cloud (that dust cloud that a second before was concrete) and how it wouldn’t be possible without explosives:
Detailed description of the demolition of the Twin Towers:
Freefall rate of “collapses” math:
More about their freefall rate “collapses”:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:
Video footage of the controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building:
More of WTC # 7 controlled demolition:
Naudet brothers' video footage of the North Tower crash:
Photos of the Pentagon’s lawn (look at these and see if you can tell me with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed there):!.htm
More photos of this amazing lawn at the Pentagon:!%20(9-11).htm
Very unconvincing fake “Osama” “confession” tape:
More about the fake “Osama” tape:
Fake “Mohammed Atta” “suicide” letter:
Commercial pilots disagree with “official” 9/11 myth:
More commercial jet pilots say “official” myth is impossible:
Impossibility of cell phone calls from United 93:
More about the impossible cell phone calls:
Experiment proves cell phone calls were NOT possible from anywhere near the altitude the “official” myth has them at:
Fake Barbara Olson phone call:
Where the hell was the Air Force?
More about the Air Force impotence question:
Sept. 10th 2001, Pentagon announces it is “missing” $2.3 trillion (now why do you think they picked THAT day to announce it? So it could be buried the next day by 9/11 news):
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan:
Unocal pipeline-through-Afghanistan plan mentioned:
More on Unocal Afghan pipeline:
The attack on Afghanistan was planned in the summer of 2001, months before 9/11:
Pentagon deliberately misled 9/11 Commission:
Evidence destruction by authorities and cover-up:
9/11 whitewash Commission and NORAD day:
The incredible fish tales of the 9/11 Commission examined:
Jeb Bush declares state of emergency 4 days before 9/11 for Florida, saying it will help respond to terrorism:
Steel debris removal from Ground Zero, destruction of evidence:
Over two hundred incriminating bits of 9/11 evidence shown in the mainstream media:
Tracking the “hijackers”:
“Hijacker” patsies:
“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:
Several accused "hijackers" still alive and well, wondering why they are accused:
Yet the F.B.I. insists that the people it claims were the "hijackers" really were the "hijackers":
No Arabs on Flight 77:
Thirty experts say “official” 9/11 myth impossible:
“Al Qaeda” website tracks back to Maryland:
Al Qaeda videos uploaded from U.S. government website:
Operation: Northwoods, a plan for a false-flag “terror” attack to be blamed on Castro to use it as a pretext for America to invade Cuba, thankfully not approved by Kennedy back in 1962 but was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent to his desk:

Posted by: Enlightenment on December 11, 2006 04:27 AM

As someone with no stake in the official story, Enlightenment, allow me to urge you to seek professional psychiatric help.

Posted by: Sterling on December 11, 2006 04:44 PM


Unworthy admonition. Enlightnment's comment, if not entirely concise or sane, represents a noble tradition in blogging. The bit I read had all the drama of Oliver Stone's ghastly Kennedy film - the only film I have ever walked out of out of tedium, but it's cheaper to walk out of a blog thread than a film.

Posted by: Claude de Bigny on December 12, 2006 10:31 AM

It's just so stupid. I guess I do have a stake in the official story because it conforms to what I saw that morning. Big, plane-shaped hole in the north tower moments after a friend IM'd that "a plane hit the World Trade Center!" and then the eruption of fire from the south tower just as someone on the radio said, "now a plane hit the other tower!"

And though 99 likes to complain about my references to the event, I traversed all the basement levels of the World Trade Center just a few minutes before the first plane hit (as did a few thousand other people), and saw absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. So the idea that explosives placed at the base brought down the building is silly - the basement was not some sealed-off crypt with no people to notice tons of explosives being moved in and placed.

Posted by: Sterling on December 12, 2006 01:54 PM

Silliness, stupidity, and incontinence of expression shouldn't be a bar to blogging.

But you only add grist to the conspiracy-theorists' mill when you claim that your friend IM'd you about a plane hitting the WTC BEFORE it happened. Who was this friend of yours?

Posted by: Claude de Bigny on December 14, 2006 08:56 AM

I didn't see either plane - I saw a hole in the north tower maybe a minute after the impact (which consisted of a wide hole in the middle and then two long wing cuts), and then (because I was north of the WTC) I saw the flame plume from the south tower impact.

The only thing I really have to add to the discussion is that I was in the basement about 15 or 20 minutes before the first plane hit and noticed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

Posted by: Sterling on December 14, 2006 05:06 PM