Ft. Hard Knox

As I have mentioned before, I have argued with many “truthers,” one of whom I have done a couple of articles on- we’ll call him “truther” A.  One of his buddies, who I will call “truther” B, is just as idiotic.

            For example, “truther” B is the one who insists that you can’t move more with less and when we pointed out that a person can push a car, his lame excuse was that the car has wheels.  The fact that the car has wheels does NOT change the fact that a car has more mass than a person. 

            Another thing “truther” B did is accuse me of saying the steel took on the properties of air when the WTC collapsed when I said no such thing.

            I merely stated that Brent Blanchard  correctly stated that the WTC, like most human-occupied buildings, is mostly air and that air is a gas ( well, technically, a mixture of gases, but you get the picture). Brent Blanchard also states that in a collapse such as what occurred in the WTC, air has to be displaced in some manner.

            What I did was state the physics law that explains why the air was displaced, which was Boyles Law, pertaining to the behavior of gases.  Boyle’s Law, as any physics book will tell you, states that the volume of air in a container is inversely proportional to the pressure.  This means that if the pressure increases, the volume decreases and vice versa.  It is often written as P₁V₁  = P₂V₂.  I simply pointed out that the WTC  ( or any human-occupied building in general)  can be considered a container, and since the Twin Towers were collapsing, the volume was obviously decreasing, which means that, per Boyle’s law, the pressure had to increase. In short, the increasing pressure created by the collapsing floors shoved the air out; the collapsing floors behaved much like the plunger in a syringe.

            Now, if you are wondering why the debris was curving as it fell, as you see from the video here, that, again is explained by physics. The equations I used in my previous article  may be used for horizontal motion as well as vertical motion-  oh, and horizontal and vertical motion are INDEPENDENT from each other.  To recap, the equations are as follows: To find the distance  something goes, the equation, as found in any physics book, is d = v_it + ½ at²  where d is the distance, v_i is the initial velocity, a is the acceleration ( if you are referring to horizontal motion, a is acceleration meaning change in velocity over time, if you are referring to vertical motion, a is acceleration due to gravity), and to find the final velocity, the equation is v = v_i + at, where v is the final velocity, v_i is the initial velocity, a is acceleration, and t is time.

            Let’s say that a chunk of debris was shoved out from about 800 ft ( 244 meters).  In both cases, the initial velocity is zero, so we only need the 2^nd half of each equation.  Obviously, if the debris is 244 meters up, then we know the vertical distance it falls, and only need to find the time-  again, time will be the same due to the fact that horizontal and vertical motion are INDEPENDENT from each other.  So, for the first equation, we only need to use d = ½ at²  to figure out how long it takes the debris to hit the ground-  in this case, the acceleration is the acceleration due to gravity. Rearrange the equation appropriately and plug in the numbers and we find it takes the debris about 7 seconds to hit the bottom.

            Now, say its  horizontal velocity when ejected was about  5 m/s ( acceleration would be 5 m/s²).  Since the initial horizontal velocity was zero, we can find the horizontal distance traveled by using this equation: d = ½ at² = ½ (5m/s²)(7 s)² = 123 meters or just over 400 ft.

            These may also be used if the initial velocity is greater than 0.  For example, if you throw a ball straight down off a cliff with an initial velocity of 5 m/s and it takes the ball 5 seconds to reach the ground, you need to use the FULL equation d = v_it + ½ at²  = (5 m/s) (5 s) + ½ (9.8m/s²) ( 5s)² = 148 meters or 483 ft. I used the acceleration due to gravity because once that ball leaves your hand, only gravity is acting on it.       

            These equations may  also be used for both horizontal and vertical motion.  For example, say someone is driving a car at about 65 MPH (29 m/s), approaching a 100 ft ( 30 meter)-high cliff, and instead of turning, suddenly accelerates to 75 MPH ( 34 m/s) and drives off the cliff ( which, of course, I would NOT recommend).  The initial vertical velocity is 0, so we can figure out how fast the car would take to hit bottom by rearranging the equation d = ½ at²  appropriately and find that it takes the car about 2.5 seconds to hit the bottom.

            We can also see how far the car travels horizontally-  in this case, the acceleration would be 34 m/s – 29 m/s divided by 2.5 seconds = 2 m/s² .  To find the horizontal distance, we use the full distance equation, so d = 29 m/s ( 2.5s) + ½ (2m/s²)( 2.5s)² = 78.75 meters or about 258 ft.

        In both the case of the car, and the debris, before they go over the edge or out the building, respectively, the ground ( or the floor) are holding them in place.  However, once the ground ( or the floor) is removed, gravity kicks in, resulting in a downward motion.  However, since both the car and the debris also have horizontal motion when going off the cliff or being ejected by the pressure of a collapsing building, the combination of the horizontal and vertical motion results in a curve, unless you’re using Roadrunner cartoon physics.

            Now, getting back to the couch that “truther” A said someone could ride down from the upper floors and survive in my previous article, as you may remember,  the couch took 8 seconds to hit bottom.  We can use the equation v = v_i + at to figure out how fast the couch is going at each second until impact.  Again, since the initial velocity is 0, we can simply say v = at.  Acceleration would be 9.8 m/s², and the information is in the following table:

We can also find out the kinetic energy of the couch at each second until impact- as any physics book will tell you, kinetic energy is equal to ½ the mass times the velocity SQUARED, written as KE = ½ mv².  As mentioned in my previous article, the mass of the couch was between 80-90 pounds or about 36-41 kilograms.  To make the math easier, let’s say the couch weighs 85 lbs, which is about 39 kilograms, so the following table indicates the kinetic energy of the couch at each second:

             As you can see, that couch hit bottom with a kinetic energy of just under 120,000 joules- it’s highly unlikely the couch would remain intact when it hit bottom and neither would anyone on the couch. Clearly, the “truthers” need to lay off the kool-aid.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Hat tip to John and Walter Stevens , my friend and his father, respectively, who were volunteer fighters and gave me the info I needed on the behavior of fires.    

 It is now time to expose “truthers” for the idiots they are once again. 

     Let’s start with the “truther” I mentioned in a previous article  first.

            One claim the guy is making is that the plane crashed into the Pentagon and disappeared it did no such thing.  One need only look at the pictures here  to see that there was plane wreckage on the Pentagon lawn.  That’s a strange definition of disappeared.

            He is also claiming that someone on a couch at the top floors should have been able to ride the couch down to the bottom and survive.  He tries to justify it by comparing that with earthquake survivors.  He can’t figure out that earthquake survivors are usually found at the LOWER floors of the collapsed buildings.

            For example, in Haiti, some earthquake survivors in a collapsed building were found on what used to be the 4^TH floor (reference ).   The 4^th floor would be considered a LOWER floor.

            A couch has an average weight of 80 – 90 pounds, which is about 36- 41 kg.    WTC 1 and 2 had a height of 417 and 415 meters (1, 368 and 1, 361 ft), respectively (source ).

            Let’s say for the sake of the argument that the couch was on one of the uppermost floors about 1000 feet up, which is about 305 meters.  The equation to figure out how fast something will fall a particular distance, which can be found in any physics book, is d = v_it  +  ½ at²  where d is the distance, v_i is the initial velocity, a is the acceleration due to gravity ( 9.8 m/s ²  or 32 ft/s² for the earth), and t is time.  However, since the initial velocity is zero, we can write the equation like this: d = ½ at². If we rearrange the equation appropriately and plug in the numbers, we find it takes about 8 seconds for the couch to fall that distance.  We can also find out how fast it’s going when it hits bottom- the formula for that is v = v_i + at, where v is the final velocity, v_i is the initial velocity, a is acceleration, and t is time, but, again, since the initial velocity is 0, we can write v = at = 9.8 m/s² (8 seconds), which is about 78.4 m/s, which is about 175 mph ( Both the above equations can also be used for horizontal motion, in which case a would simply be acceleration, defined as a change in velocity-  I will deal with that in the next article) In short, that couch is going to be hauling some major butt when it hits bottom.  So if the couch is doing 175 MPH when it hits bottom and a person is on the couch then, per Newton’s 1^st Law of Motion (An object in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless the object is acted upon by an outside force, as per any physics book), the person on the couch will also be doing 175 MPH when the couch hits bottom, so unless the person sprouts wings and flies off, it is highly unlikely that they will survive an impact at that speed. After all, it’s not the fall that’ll kill them; it’s the sudden stop at the end.

            His next bit of stupidity is that he dismisses the fires going up by saying that the jet fuel doesn’t flow up.  While that is technically true, he ignores the fact that the jet fuel was merely the IGNITION source of the fire.  As I pointed out in a previous article, fire will go any direction there is fuel and by fuel I mean something to burn.  It seems to me there was plenty of combustible material in the WTC- drywall, paper, etc. Furthermore, fire can move pretty fast. I was speaking to a friend’s dad, Walter Stevens-  he and his son, John  were BOTH volunteer firefighters and fought some of the worst fires out here in Ca, including the 2003 Cedar fire and he informed me that fire actually burns faster uphill. In addition, I recall the 2007 wildfires out here in California JUMPING the local freeway and jumping implies UPWARD motion. I also spoke to my friend John Stevens as he was one of the ones fighting the 2003 Cedar fire and he told me that on a CALM day, fire can move as fast as 100 MPH.  He also informed me that the Cedar fire started at 8:30 am in Ramona,Ca, and was in Poway 20 minutes later.  He informed me that the Cedar fire was moving at  about freeway speeds, betwee 65-70 MPH). Granted, wildfires and building fires are different, but it still wouldn’t be surprising that some of the WTC fires went up due to basic physics that we learned in 3^rd grade:  Fire is hot and HEAT RISES.

            The guy then goes on to say that the towers should not have collapsed because the upper floors weren’t damaged.  There was PLENTY of damage to the floors in the impact zone.  The impact took out many perimeter columns, much like taking a can from the middle or bottom of the stack instead of the top (reference ). The impact, severe structural damage, and fires IN COMBINATION with each other is what caused the collapse (reference ).

            He’s also continuing his insistence that the rear of the plane should have just stopped when the front hit the Pentagon, regardless of the fact that this violates Newton’s 1^st law.   This car crash test of an Audi here  demonstrates that quite nicely.  Watch the slow-motion part starting at 22 seconds and you will notice that when the front end impacts the wall, the rear end is still moving forward.  This is why cars are designed with crumple zones.

            Before any “truther” points out that the car in question here did not go through the wall and the planes did, the car in the video was probably not going fast enough to go through the wall.  Velocity has a great deal to do with it since, as any physics book will tell you, the kinetic energy increases by the SQUARE of the velocity.  Seeing as how a passenger jet can go considerably faster than a car, it’s not surprising the plane managed to go through the Pentagon’s wall.

            On a similar note, while watching some old Get Smart reruns with Don Adams, I discovered another “truther” making a fool of himself with the following YouTube videos here and here.

            First of all, Get Smart was FICTION, and second the episode in question aired in 1967, plus the construction of WTC 1 was not finished until 1972 ( source ).  Furthermore, in the Get Smart episode in question, the bad guy placed nitroglycerin in the bricks.  There are two problems with this:  1:  Nitroglycerin is EXTREMELY UNSTABLE. Just the tiniest movement or bit of friction can set it off (source ).  It seems to me that there are plenty of things that could set the nitroglycerin off just during the construction alone.  They use things like hammers in building construction, and heavy machinery as well, including cranes.  There is also the possibility of the construction workers either dropping the nitroglycerin or dropping something on top of it- and what about laying electrical wire during construction. There are plenty of tools used in construction that would generate friction. In short, there would be too great a risk of setting it off prematurely, and 2)  As we see from Brent Blanchard, nitroglycerin in the bricks would NOT do the trick as you have to place cutting charges on load-bearing I- beams and such. Hint:  bricks are NOT load-bearing I-beams.

            Once again, we see “truthers” simply don’t understand physics and chemistry, although I will say this much:  The title of the show this “truther” is using to “prove” his point, Get Smart, describes  exactly what “truthers” need to do.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Yet more problems have been found with the April 2009 paper on nanothermite at the WTC by Steven Jones et al and the evidence is found here.

            First of all, as I pointed out in a previous article, the paper in question was NOT properly peer-reviewed and was published by Bentham online which is notorious for its shoddy standards and the editor  resigned in protest ( source ).

            11-settembre  provides a few pictures of the so-called “proof” about a quarter of the way down the page.

            As we see here, while the paper does ( surprisingly) admit that calcium and sulfur could be explained by the gypsum, aka drywall that was present in the towers (You think?!),  and focus on the frequent occurrence of carbon, oxygen, iron, aluminum and silicon.

            The paper states that when placed in a solvent, the red layer was revealed to be composed of oxygen, silicon, carbon, and iron ( reference ).            Jones et al used methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)  on the red layer and say they obtained samples of pure aluminum.  However, there is one tiny little problem:  MEK reacts quite vigorously with aluminum, which would obviously skew the results ( reference ).

            11-settembre  provides this quote from an Italian paper, translated into English: “Stability and reactivity The product is stable in normal conditions of storage and use. Heat or fire can cause the release of carbon oxides and vapors that can be harmful. Vapors can form explosive mixtures with air. Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum, and with strong oxidizers: it attacks various kinds of plastic. Unsuitable materials: natural rubber, butyl rubber, EPDM, polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, Polyacrylonitrile. Suitable materials: stainless steel, carbon steel, polyester, Teflon.”

            In short, the conclusion reached in the paper is erroneous and it is more likely that there is no pure aluminum or it’s been severely oxidized ( source ).

            As we see here,  the red particles are clearly Fe₂O_3,  or iron oxide and Jones et al assume that the presence of iron oxide combined with elemental aluminum prove thermite-  they would do well to remember the old adage as to why one should never assume. Then again, the first three letters of assume accurately describe what the “truthers” keep making of themselves. 11-settembre http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

also points out that the presence of reactive aluminum is VERY uncertain.

            This quote from 11-settembre  drives the point home quite nicely ( emphasis is mine): “I believe, therefore, there is good reason to question this forced conclusion, which contrasts with the rules of chemistry. The authors claim to have found nanoparticles of elemental aluminum, which cannot be all that reactive if they remain unchanged after 55 hours in a methyl ethyl ketone bath (in other words, one can deduce that they should be surrounded by a compact layer of aluminum oxide, a material that withstands extremely high temperatures and has a very high hardness), yet react violently already at 430°C to trigger a thermitic reaction.”

            As for the red chips, they are indeed composed of Fe₂O₃ or iron ( III ) oxide, which, in lay man’s terms, is rust.  Remember, the Twin Towers were 3 decades old and, as 11-settembre  correctly points out, were in a rather brackish environment.  Hmm, rust in a 3-decade-old building located in a brackish area?! Perish the thought!

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

     Continuing from my previous two articles, we have 6 more lies from David Ray Griffin in his book, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,” which was provided at 911myths.com.   Again, unless otherwise indicated, all David Ray Griffin quotes are from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.”

     Here is additional claim 1 from page 266: ““In 1993, a panel of experts commissioned by the Pentagon suggested that airplanes could be used as missiles to bomb national landmarks. In 1994, one of these experts wrote in the Futurist magazine:

Targets such as the World Trade Center not only provide the requisite casualties but, because of their symbolic nature, provide more bang for the buck. In order to maximize their odds for success, terrorist groups will likely consider mounting multiple, simultaneous operations.” (source )

     However, Griffin is using the expert panel in 1993 and the Futurist magazine article together in an attempt to “prove” there was foreknowledge of the usage of planes to attack the WTC.  The problems are two-fold: 1) The Futurist articles was talking about WMD attacks, cyber attacks, etc, 2)  While the Futurist article did mention the WTC, it’s not that surprising since the Futurist article was published in 1994 and the WTC had been attacked in 1993, and 3) No mention of planes as missiles was made (reference).

     Additional claim 2 is from page 266, “In 1995, Senator Sam Nunn, in Time magazine’s cover story, described a scenario in which terrorists crash a remote-controlled airplane into the US Capitol Building.” ( source )

     Again, this was referring to planes loaded down with chemical or biological weapons, not suicide attacks- apples to oranges (reference).

     Additional claim 3 from pages 266-267: “In 1999, the National Intelligence Council, which advises the President and US intelligence agencies on emerging threats, said in a special report on terrorism: “A-Qaeda’s expected retaliation for the US cruise missile attack [of 1998]… could take several forms of suicide attack in the nation’s capitol. Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives… into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House.” ( reference)

     However, if you read the ENTIRE paragraph, you’ll see that Griffin is engaging in the typical- and dishonest- “truther” tactic of quote mining. Again, it was not necessarily about hijackings and the conclusion was that a conventional terrorist attack was more likely ( source).

     Additional claim 4 from page 267: “In October 2000, Pentagon officials carried out an emergency drill to prepare for the possibility that a hijacked airliner might be crashed into the Pentagon.” ( reference)

     There are two problems here.  The first one is the date- October of 2000.  In October of  2000, Clinton was still president.  The drill in question was Oct 24-26, 2000,  about 2 weeks BEFORE the election.  There is no way anyone could have known what was going to happen two weeks later-  and if George W. Bush is able to predict the future that accurately, would he please tell me what the winning lottery numbers will be?

     Furthermore, 911myths.com quotes a Washington Times article that Griffin ignores and here is what the article said: “Pentagon and Arlington, Va., emergency responders rehearsed how they would respond if a plane crashed into the Pentagon in October 2000, less than a year before the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The scenario did not necessarily involve a hijacked aircraft. It addresses only a crash and the effect on the ground response team.

     But the scenario, taken as a whole with other recent revelations of intelligence warnings about hijacking and military exercises that contemplated hijacked planes hitting landmark buildings, casts further doubt on national security adviser Condoleezza Rice’s claim that no one could have anticipated a Sept. 11-like disaster, “ and “The Oct. 24-26, 2000 Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, part of an annual emergency response rehearsal, envisioned a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon, killing 341 victims. The Pentagon is less than a mile from Reagan National Airport and is daily in the flight path of small commuter planes. Larger airliners generally fly to the east of the massive building over the Potomac River.

Other scenarios rehearsed included a terrorist “incident” at the Pentagon subway stop and a construction accident.” ( source)

Before “truthers” harp on the first paragraph, read it carefully and you’ll see that the Washington Times article points out that it wasn’t necessarily a hijacked aircraft.  It further states that it merely had a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon but it was NOT a hijacked aircraft.  In point of fact, the Pentagon is very close to Reagan National Airport, putting it on a flight path.  Therefore, it would not be unusual for them to have a scenario involving a plane crash ( reference).

Additional claim 5 from page 267: “In July 2001, according to an article headed “NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons”, the military planned a drill in which hijacked airliners, originating in the United States, were used as weapons to crash into targets, including the World Trade Center.” ( source)

This statement here is an outright lie on David Ray Griffin’s part.  Here is what the USAToday article he quoted REALLY said: “The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.”  While there were exceptions, they were CONVENTIONAL hijackings ( reference).  

Last, but not least, additional claim 6 from page 267: “At 9.00 on the morning of 9/11, the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites and draws its personnel from the military and the CIA, had planned to simulate the accidental crashing of an airplane into its headquarters, four miles from Dulles Airport in Washington. The simulation was evidently to be run by ‘John Fulton and his team at the CIA.’”  (source)

Griffin makes this claim far too easy to debunk- you will notice that it says they were simulating an ACCIDENTAL crash.  The crashes on 9/11 were DELIBERATE.  In point of fact, this was a simulation of a Lear jet or Fed-ex plane ( not even a commercial airliner) flaming out near the end of the runway and hitting the building.  In other words, the simulation involved a plane that never even got into the air ( reference).

Once again, we see Griffin is twisting facts to suit his agenda.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Welcome to the archives of the Ft. Hard Knox project (2007-2010). To find what you’re looking for use the search bar or click on one of the categories to the right. If you have any questions, please e-mail Jenn@FortHardKnox.com.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

     Continuing from my previous article, here are some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies exposed.  Again, unless otherwise indicated, all of Griffin quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com) are from Griffin’s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.”

     Claim 5, from page 265: “After the 1999-2000 millennium alert, … Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda… [T]he possibility was imaginable, and imagined”  (source )

     Readers will notice that Griffin is rather vague here and doesn’t describe the type of aircraft or where the hijacked plane would go.  However, here is the full quote in context from page 345 of the 9/11 Commission Report from 911myths.com: “In late 1999, a great deal of discussion took place in the media about the crash off the coast of Massachusetts of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767. The most plausible explanation that emerged was that one of the pilots had gone berserk, seized the controls, and flown the aircraft into the sea. After the 1999 — 2000 millennium alerts, when the nation had relaxed, Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the possibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda.17

     In his testimony, Clarke commented that he thought that warning about the possibility of a suicide hijacking would have been just one more speculative theory among many…” As you can see, while it was discussing a possible suicide hijacking, specifics were lacking ( source ).

     Claim 6 from page 265: “In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat… [T]he paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a ‘suicide hijacking operation’” ( reference )

     Of course, in typical “truther” fashion, Griffin is engaging in quote mining.  Here is the quote in its proper context provided by 911myths.com: ““In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Laden hijacking threat. After a solid recitation of all the information available on this topic, the paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a “suicide hijacking operation.”The FAA analysts judged such an operation unlikely, because “it does not offer an opportunity for dialogue to achieve the key goal of obtaining Rahman and other key captive extremists. . . . A suicide hijacking is assessed to be an option of last resort.”   As you can see, despite Griffin’s claim to the contrary, this actually bolsters NORAD’s statements

     Claim 7, from page 265, “A CIA report on June 12, 2001, said that KSM “was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Laden’s behalf. On June 22, the CIA notified all its station chiefs about intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a US target over the next few days.” (source )

     Anyone with an ounce of logic would realize this is pretty flimsy evidence-  where is the mention of hijackings?  Furthermore, those increased threat reports were NOT limited to the United States.  The G8 summit in Genoa, Italy was also a possibility (reference ).

     Claim 8 from pages 265-266, “In late June [2001], because of threats, Italy closed the airspace over Genoa and mounted antiaircraft batteries at the Genoa airport during the G-8 summit which President Bush attended” (258). We learn elsewhere that the Italians kept fighters in the air over the city, and that the threat was taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight offshore, on an aircraft carrier. Although this example, like the first one, is about a threat in Europe, not the United States, it obviously counts against the thesis that there was a “failure of imagination” with regard to the possibility that terrorists might try to use airplanes to attack President Bush. (Another puzzling thing about this example is that the Commission, in mentioning that “antiaircraft batteries” had to be mounted at the Genoa airport, failed to point out that the White House and the Pentagon already have their own antiaircraft batteries, which would shoot down any aircraft except one with a transponder signal indicating that it belongs to the US military.)” (reference)

     Once again, the threat was not necessarily in the United States or about hijackings. In addition, Italian officials stated that the anti-aircraft batteries were meant to deter a small plane, not a commercial jetliner, plus there are other problems. While Bush did stay on the carrier overnight-  and it would not be unreasonable to assume that he did so to reduce his exposure to possible terrorist attacks, there’s no evidence that threats from the air were the specific reason. Terrorist attacks can come from many directions, plus other leaders, such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia also stayed offshore. (source )

Last but not least, claim 9, from page 266, “On August 6, 2001, the Presidential Daily Brief included an intelligence memo stating, amongst other things, that “[one threat report said] that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft… FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks… CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives” (reference )

     First, as we see here, the PDB memo was nothing more than a status report and, if you’ll pardon my language, a rather half-assed one at that.

Second, the hijacking report was an old one from 1998 ( hmm, once again, when CLINTON was president), and couldn’t be corroborated ( source ).

     This quote from page 262 of the 9/11 Commission Report further shoots down Griffin’s claim: “Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”  As you can see, it was a rather vague description and could describe just about any type of terrorist activity (reference ).

      Clearly, the only omissions and distortions are from David Ray Griffin.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Now, it is time to expose some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies.

            David Ray Griffin does not consider the claim that NORaD didn’t recognize the threat of airliners as missiles to be valid.  Once again, 911myths.com provides a quote from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,”  “The contention that the threat really was not recognized was based partly on the fact that the Kean-Zelikow Report combined the second and third presumption into a single twofold presumption–that commercial airliners would not be (1) hijacked within the United States and then (2) used as guided missiles by suicide hijackers. Given the fact that both conditions would need to be met to have a counter-instance to Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim, the Kean-Zelikow Report can dismiss seeming counter-instances by pointing out that one or the other of the two conditions was not met. The Report mentioned, for example, a proposed readiness test for NORAD based on the idea of “a hijacked airliner coming from overseas and crashing into the Pentagon” (346). This example, by having the aircraft come from overseas, provided no refutation of the contention that no one had imagined a plane hijacked within the United States and then used to strike the Pentagon–the crucial difference being that if the plane were coming from overseas, there would be plenty of time to identify the aircraft and scramble interceptors.

However, even with the stipulation that both conditions would have to be met, there is considerable evidence that counts against the credibility of Eberhart’s claim. 

Some of this evidence is, surprisingly enough, provided by the Commission itself. I will list nine examples provided in the Kean-Zelikow Report that either clearly do, or at least may, contradict the Report’s endorsement of Eberhart’s “no recognition” claim.” Griffin implies that the plane from overseas hitting the Pentagon is the whole point of the exercise-  however, that particular scenario was scrapped as being too unrealistic ( source).

            Prior to 9/11, NORAD considered the main threat to be from cruise missiles. Aircrafts as weapons were considered a possibility in the late 1990’s ( hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president then) but they were concerned about aircraft laden with WMD’s, NOT passenger jets. In short, they are acknowledging that they were aware of the possibility of suicide hijackings but it was considered unlikely ( reference ).  Hmm, I believe it was CLINTON who was president in the late 1990’s.

            David Ray Griffin considers the fact that there are reports of the possibility of suicide hijackings, planes as weapons, or both to be “proof” that he is right.  However, those qualifications are rather broad. Furthermore, the military NEVER said they were unaware of said reports, as evidenced by this quote provided at 911myths.com: “Now, there were some talks about in post hijack situations where they talked to about people over the demands were made that they were going to crash, one instance, into the Eiffel Tower, but even the work that was done and the hijackings that were planned for the Philippines, which is a well-known plot, they planned to hijack the airplanes and blow them up primarily.

So, no, the threat perception, there was not — the intelligence did not point to this kind of threat, and I think that explains our posture.”

            9/11 Myths.com has some much more stringent qualifications than Griffin, and proceeds to show the problems with his 9 claims.  I will deal with the first four claims in this article. 

For your reference, all of Griffin’s quotes ( which I found at 911myths.com)   are from his book “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” unless otherwise indicated.

            “First, we have this quote from page 264 “[A]n Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, … possibly to crash it into the Eiffel tower” (345). The airplane was hijacked in Algiers. But since the distance from Algiers to Paris is less than the distance across the United States, there might have been less time to intercept it than is available to intercept a plane hijacked within this country. It would, therefore, not take much imagination to transfer the scenario to the United States” (source )

However, here is the FULL quote provided by 911myths.com: “an Algerian group hijacked an airliner in 1994, most likely intending to blow it up over Paris, but possibly to crash it into the Eiffel Tower.
9/11 Commission Report
Pages 344-348

Footnote #14 to Chapter 1:
…The Algerian hijackers had placed explosives in key areas of the cabin. However, there was some speculation in the media based on reports from a passenger aboard the plane that the hijackers had discussed crashing it into the Eiffel Tower”  (reference )

Note the phrase, “ MOST LIKELY INTEDNING TO BLOW IT UP OVER PARIS,”  and you’ll see that they only TALKED about crashing the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

            In point of fact, it was actually a hijacking that occurred on the ground and the plane stayed on the ground for a day.  When the plane finally did take off, it was with the regular flight crew at the controls.  In short, this was a conventional hijacking and comparing it to 9/11/01 is comparing apples to oranges ( reference ).

Second, there is this quote, also from page 264, “In early 1995, Abdul Hakim Murad-Ramzi Yousef’s accomplice in the Manila airlines bombing plot–told Philippine authorities that he and Yousef had discussed flying a plane into CIA headquarters” (345). It was, we saw, this plan that provided the basis for Wolfowitz’s “failure of imagination” comment.” (source )

However, while it does allow the possibility of suicide pilots, it does NOT necessarily have anything to do with hijackings or commercial airliners as weapons.  In point of fact, the aircraft in phase one were simply going to be blown up (reference ).

Claim three, from pages 264-265: “In August of [1998], the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center. (344-345). The Commission does not explicitly say that the plane would be hijacked from within the United States, but it also does not explicitly say otherwise.” (source )

However, here is the FULL sentence, “In August of the same year, the intelligence community had received information that a group of Libyans hoped to crash a plane into the World Trade Center.” ( reference )

Notice there was no mention of the type of plane and here is another quote from 911myths.com that exposes David Ray Griffin for the fraud he is: “For the August report, see Intelligence report, “Terrorism: Alleged Threat by Arab Terrorists to Attack the World Trade Center in New York,” Aug. 12, 1998. An FAA civil aviation security official believed the plan was improbable because Libyan planes were required to operate within airspace limitations and the Libyans did not possess aircraft with the necessary range to make good on the threat. Jack S. interview (June 13, 2004). On September 30, 1999, the FAA closed the file on the August report after investigation could not corroborate the report, and the source’s credibility was deemed suspect.”   Notice the threat COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED.

Claim  four from page 265: “[Richard] Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics… In 1998, Clarke chaired an exercise [that] involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it towards a target in Washington, D.C.” (345) The Commission elsewhere concluded the description of this exercise by saying that the terrorist group “took off for a suicide mission to Washington” (457-58 n98).”  ( source )

However, Griffin isn’t quite being honest here.  If you read the paragraph closely, you’ll see that it isn’t necessarily about a hijacking and it was a private aircraft laden with explosives that Clarke was concerned about. Furthermore, the Department of Defense was not inclined to offer resources, which makes it pretty obvious they thought that type of attack was highly unlikely. In addition, Richard Clarke himself said that since the reports were 5-6 years old, combined with the volumes of other reports that the intelligence community received, it is understandable they may have missed a few things ( reference ).

I will address claims 5-9 in the next article.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Okay, here are some more lies and/or half-truths that “truthers” tell.

One lie “truthers” use is that of the scramble time from Otis Air Force Base. They claim that eyewitness testimony casts doubt that the fighters were scrambled at 8:52 and use this quote, found at 911myths.com, which they got from here,  to “prove” their point:  “William Wibel, principal of a school inside Otis Air National Guard Base, is inside the Otis base preparing for a meeting when he learns that the WTC has been attacked and his meeting is canceled. He says, “As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty.” [Cape Cod Times, 9/12/01] The WTC crash does not break on local news and radio until about 8:52 a.m. Even if he hears CNN’s early reporting starting at 8:48 a.m., it still presumably takes time to learn the meeting is canceled, go back to his car and so forth. NORAD says the fighters took off from Otis at 8:52 a.m.”

            There’s one tiny little detail “truthers” forget- they are citing what a REPORTER wrote, which means they’re getting the information secondhand. The reporter does not necessarily write the sequence of events in chronological order in their article (source ). 911myths.com provides this quote from the Cape Cod Times, “Wibel was preparing for a meeting with military commanders when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash. That meeting was abruptly canceled.”  They further point out that if Wibel was with the military commanders, the meeting cancellation might have been a response to the initial scramble order. 911myths.com provides this alternative sequence of events: “ a) Wibel prepares for the meeting, b) hijacking alert, c) meeting cancels, and Wibel packs up,  d) hears WTC has been attacked and leaves.”  Yes, this is also speculation, and 911myths.com admits as much but they also correctly point out that it’s still perfectly plausible.

            Furthermore, there is also another possibility.  Wibel may have been so far inside the base he didn’t hear the planes take off or he simply ignored the sound of the jets.  After all, if you live on or near a military base, you tend to get used to the sounds of aircraft taking off and landing, shelling, etc ( source ) I can vouch for this as I live near Camp Pendleton.  Every now and then, Camp Pendleton does its war games and we hear choppers and shelling, but I’m so used to those sounds that I simply tune it out.

            Another lie is found in David Ray Griffin’s book ““ The New Pearl Harbor.” Griffin claims that Flight 11 should have been intercepted within 10 minutes of being hijacked, but he clearly needs to do a better job of research ( reference ).

            Despite what people believe, the air traffic controller does not simply pick up the phone and call the nearest airbase-  there are procedures that must be followed. Here are the steps that they must go through, as outlined by 911myths.com: 1) Air Traffic Control (ATC) must first determine that there is a problem and the loss of radio contact or sudden course changes aren’t a result of some other routine cause.  After all, loss of radio contact can simply be equipment malfunction or weather and a sudden course change may also be weather related, 2) If there is a problem, the ATC will report the problem to their supervisor and explain why they’re worried, 3) If the supervisor concurs, he will call the FAA and ask to speak to the hijack coordinator, who is the one who deals with NORAD, 4) The FAA hijack coordinator requests an escort by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC), but, guess what-  the planes aren’t scrambled yet ( source).   The thing is hijacking is a law enforcement issue, so law enforcement has to ask the military for assistance.  Then, the duty officer of the National Military Command Center ( NMCC) has to call NORAD to ask about the availability of fighters. Then they have to get the okay from a representative of the secretary of defense, which can take a while.  Clearly, just these steps alone can take MUCH longer than 10 minutes ( source ).

            The Payne Stewart intercept is a case in point-  it took 76 minutes, NOT 20, as “truthers” claim ( reference ). Air Traffic Control lost contact with Stewarts place at 9:33 am EASTERN Daylight Time and the intercept occurred at 9:52 am CENTRAL Daylight Time ( reference ).

            Let’s not forget the Jan 2002 incident where teenager Charles Bishop crashed his plane into a Tampa, Florida skyscraper-  before the crash, he flew very low over a military airbase but no intercept occurs.  NORAD was unaware of the problem until 5:13 pm, almost 10 minutes AFTER Bishop had crashed. They alerted the fighters at 5:16 pm, the fighters took off at 5:21 pm and reached Tampa at 5:45 pm, meaning, had an intercept occurred, the intercept time would have been 55 minutes ( source )

            Then, on or near  June 20,  2002, 9 months AFTER 9/11, 2 F-16’s failed to intercept a Cessna that passed too close to the White House.  911myths.com provides the following timeline: “

7:59 p.m. Cessna enters “restricted” air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters “prohibited” air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House “within a few miles”
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs “a few minutes later.”

            You will notice that in spite of tightened security, streamlined intercept procedures and the fact that the fighters were less than 10 miles away from Washington, DC, the time from the problem to the fighters taking off was 18 minutes and the planes arrived on the scene a little bit after that ( reference ).

Furthermore, even after the fighters take off, identification and intercept are not certain- in 2002, military jets could only ID and intercept about 40% of intruders in training drills ( reference ).   Now, if they can only successfully ID and intercept 40% of intruders in training drills, it seems to me that in an actual combat situation, that rate might be lower as things happen so fast in the heat of the moment

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Now that the FHK site is up and running again, it’s time to provide the facts that  “truthers”  have been leaving out.  We will deal with Flight 93 in this article.

First, we have the “truther” claim that Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland and they use an AP bulletin to “prove” that claim.  However, what “truthers” DON’T tell you is that the bulletin was in error and AP retracted it a short time later. Liz Foreman clarified by stating that only the link to the story was moved but they forgot to remove the story and she admitted it was her mistake due to the hectic nature of that day.  It’s called human error-  there is NOTHING suspicious about that.  The flight that did land in Cleveland was Delta Flight 1989 (reference ).

Second, we have a claim by David Ray Griffin  in his book “ A New Pearl Harbor” quotes an article in which CeeCee Lyle’s husband says she screamed, “ They’re doing it, they’re doing it,” followed by a “whooshing sound,” which Griffin claims indicates a missile hit ( source ).  However, here is the ACTUAL quote from the postgazette.com Griffin is citing: “CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.

‘They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn’t understand. Then the line went dead.’” ( reference ) If you scroll further up in the article, you’ll see that CeeCee Lyles was talking to her husband about the passengers were planning the counter-attack we know occurred  ( Oh, and before any “truther” brings up John Farmer’s book, “ The Ground Truth,” where he says the black box shows the hijackers crashed the plane because they feared the passengers would gain control,  it’s still true that it was the decision of the passengers to fight back that kept Flight 93 from its target-  and his book was about the bureaucracy, and NOBODY will deny that bureaucracy is a problem), so it’s a fairly safe bet that her statement, “ they’re doing it,” was referring to the passengers fighting back.  You will see there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about a “whooshing” sound.  Furthermore, missiles don’t make whooshing sounds; they make explosions ( source ).

Third, is the claim is that eight minutes before the crash, a passenger, Glenn Cramer, locked himself in the bathroom and called 911 and said, in an understandably frantic tone that they were being hijacked.  The conspiracy theorists also claim Cramer heard an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane. However, the only part that is true is that Cramer made the 9/11 call ( source ).

There are several problems with this claim: 1) As we see here, the plane crashed at about 10:03 am and the alleged white smoke and explosion occurred at 9:58 am.  Just how the heck is a plane that was hit by a missile going to remain in flight for another 4-5 minutes?!   Did someone turn off gravity?   The debris also would have been spread out over a MUCH larger area. The most obvious problem, of course, is this:  Planes generally fly in the 30,000 ft range, where the air is thinner than at sea level-  that’s why the cabin is pressurized.  Had the plane miraculously remained in flight after being holed by a missile, rapid depressurization would have resulted, which means that there is NO WAY Mr. Cramer would have seen any white smoke as it would have been sucked out as a result of the depressurization (reference ). After all, any physics book will tell you that  air will flow from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure, or “downhill,” so to speak.

Finally, despite conspiracy theorists’ claims to the contrary, the fact that one of flight 93’s engines was found far from the main debris field does NOT prove that it was shot down. Airline expert Michael K.  Hynes, who investigated the TWA Flight 800 crash in 1996. He points out that at very high speeds, it’s not unusual for an engine to tumble across the ground.  Yes, the engine fan was found 300 yards away, but what “truthers” don’t mention is that it was found 300 yards to the south, which is the DIRECTION FLIIGHT 93 WAS TRAVELLING AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH! This is consistent with Newton’s 1^st law, which state that an object at rest tends to remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Remember, the plane was going  over 500 MPH ( about 805 kilometers/hr) which is between 700 and  800 ft/second (  between 213 and 243 meters/second)There is also a statement by conventional weapons expert Robert Sherman in the Pittsburgh Pulp describing the missile theories regarding Flight 93 as “ the usual paranoid crap.”  He further states that plan crashes tend to do strange things to the plane ( source ).

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

I do.

Sure, I could watch Fox News, but I pretty much know what I am going to get there and I have no problem admitting the coverage is a bit to the right.

MSNBC on the other hand is a new adventure every day.

I for one had no idea so many people agreed with Keith Olbermann. So many in fact he is booked solid with them until mid 2021. There are so many guests who agree with every word he says and enjoy parroting it back that he simply is unable to accommodate the few who do not.

And Chris. God, I love Chris Matthews. The other day he wanted to make sure the Times Square thing was not the work of “Right Wing Nuts” so badly that he asked his guest several times if we could really ever dismiss that possibility. When told they generally like the anti-government target and Times Square is the sort of open capitalism the right likes, the poor guy really seemed confused.

No confusion last night when he explained how the current president is one of the most intelligent ever who spends his time studying every issue. Unlike Keith, Chris likes to have a Dem & Rep talking head on because it’s fun to play two on one (more so when you can cut to commercial for your team). It was as if he wanted to scream “Don’t you get it? This man is a genius and for you to disagree him is just insane. Are you insane?”

No, I’m not because for me to believe that our president is a genius and puts all this effort into such a pile of garbage relabeled polices is the very definition of insanity I find. It’s much kinder to accept we don’t want someone studying the issues, we want someone with a grasp of the issues. Two years in the Senate does not a leader make no matter how bright people tell him he is all the time.

As for the genius thing.. hmm.. hey wait – didn’t Jimmy Carter work with nuclear reactors in the Navy? Yeah. I bet he was a smart one indeed which makes me think about Truman who was not at all well educated yet had something both Carter and the current genius in chief lack; common sense and a direction for our great nation.

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

PBS: As part of a look at how both political parties are connecting with constituents on the Web, Ray Suarez reports on how Republicans and their allies are looking to harness new media in advance of this year’s elections.

H/T ARRA News Service

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Franklin Graham, Honorary Chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, 2010, tells the gospel truth…

[youtube 83xnqzfyQ4c]

…but he need not be so pessimistic about our future, if Americans are willing to wake up and “repent,” i.e., turn to the truth, and yield ourselves to it (hence, the word under-stand). That is how to truly become aware and strong. And people who do this will fulfill the responsibilities with which God charges them. Those who are Sovereign Citizens of America will carry out our responsibilities to govern our nation and influence our culture. For example, that is what you are doing, right?

But you know this is no anti-Christ we are facing, Franklin. Not enough talent. Of course, the spirits involved are anti-Christ; very much so. And Barack Obama knows he should not outwardly oppose Christianity. That has been tried, before. Rather, a good neo-Marxist will wear sheep’s not wolf’s garb, while he: 1. changes the message, 2. psychologically ostracizes those who “cling” to the true message, and 3. exerts a controlling influence over those who receive his “gospel.”

Thus, Obama has repeatedly asserted that, “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” That is a tenet of Marxism, including its Christian co-opting arm of liberation theology, but it is adversarial to the salvation which is offered by Jesus Christ directly, to every single one of us, through His ultimate sacrifice. Someone should warn Barack Obama that it is not only very harmful but very dangerous, to come between God Incarnate and the individual whose freedom He bought forever, by His own blood.

I just called evil anything that intervenes against the work of the Holy Spirit of God, directly dealing with any person, as He testifies of: 1. God’s sinless holiness, 2. man’s being lost in sin, alienated from God, and 3. Jesus’ offering us one lovingly specific way back to God. One of many such interferences is the competing ideology of Islam. Shortly after 9/11, Franklin Graham cited Islam as evil. There is the divisiveness of which he is accused. And so, he was uninvited from today’s (Christian) National Day of Prayer ceremony, at the Pentagon.

Ideological divisiveness appears to be a grave sin, in the irrationally truthless world of relativism and cultural Marxism. That is okay, though — truly. Jesus himself warned He came to bring just this sword of perfect divisiveness, between the singular truth and every denial of it. He even let us know that the world would hate those who joined Him in proclaiming the truth, just as it hated Him.

Unlike Barack Obama’s Department of Defense, you see, God’s Son allows the freedom to hear God, if we wish, and to receive His grace, if we choose.

Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

- Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:32-43

Submitted to you on this Christian National Day of Prayer, May the Sixth, in the Year of our Lord, 2010.     – AW

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Americans United for Life is hosting a reception this evening to present House Republican Leader John A. Boehner with the 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award.

Leader Boehner will be recognized both for his extraordinary leadership in the fight to prevent taxpayer- funded abortion and for his work to protect women’s health in his own state of Ohio.

WHAT: 2010 Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award Reception

WHEN: Remarks begin at 6:00 p.m. EST Tonight

WHERE: 655 15th Street NW on the rooftop [Washington, D.C.]

PRESS REGISTRATION: email press@aul.org

About the Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award

The Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award was established to honor the legacy of Representative Henry J. Hyde, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Each year, it is awarded to an elected official who demonstrates outstanding leadership in the cause of Life.

This award was recently covered by National Journal and Life News.

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public- interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.

Recently, Americans United for Life detailed the facts on taxpayer-funding of abortion during the debate over federal health care legislation, provided legal assistance to states working to opt out of abortion provisions created by federal health care law, and has taken a leading role in educating policymakers on the record of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.

Welcome to the new Church 2.0 category on Ft. Hard Knox. Here, you will find great resources for any Christian wanting to become more effective in online activism, especially in Church outreach.

If you haven’t already, be sure to download our free .pdf file on Church 2.0.

Finally, if you use a feed reader, you’ll want to add FHK’s Church 2.0 feed to your reading list!

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Living in California I am well aware of the impact of the terrible economy we are in at the moment. This report from ChiefExecutive.net highlights perhaps the greatest issue facing our state: We hate business. California has managed to rank 51 out of 50 states (DC was included).

Share this with a friend!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace Netvouz Newsvine

oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Surphace Sphinn Spurl

Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

  Link HTML: 

 Permalink: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

The D.C. City Council will hold a final vote this week on the legalization of marijuana for medical use.

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said,

Although pain management is an important function of modern medicine the legalization of marijuana is more about regulating illegal drug use than medicine. California’s experience should inform D.C.’s decision. The recreational use of ‘medical’ marijuana in California is so rampant that it has become a common gag line in popular media. Physicians are not without alternatives for the treatment of chronic pain. To use this argument to advocate for the legalization of a drug with such dangerous affects is absurd.

A federal report released by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHS) in 2002 concluded the younger children are when they first use marijuana, the more likely they are to use cocaine and heroin and become dependent on drugs as adults.

It is common sense that marijuana is a gateway drug to other illicit drugs and behaviors. It is mind-altering and inhibits decision making and discretion, affecting not only the user but others around them.”

Unquestionably, legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is a slippery slope. The proven consequences of legalization of marijuana are abuse and misuse. Women and mothers have enough to worry about without the easy availability of marijuana added to the list.

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.