Saturday, August 28, 2010

'I Decline to Accept the End of Man'

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

We look back at New Orleans recalling Katrina and more recently the reckless disregard shown the Gulf of Mexico by BP, a 'person' by SCOTUS reckoning. By going unpunished, BP proved SCOTUS to be as wrong as they are either stupid or crooked or both.

That --of course --is the difference. That is why 'corporations' are not people and never will be people however absurdly SCOTUS may decree it. People are charged, arrested and tried for crimes. But corporations have been put above the law. To call them 'people' is beyond stupid; it is unconscionable, wrong and wrong-headed. It is a lasting testament to the failure of American education that SCOTUS has apparently gotten away with it.

SCOTUS has proven itself oblivious to truth, logic or common sense. Five wing nuts on that court have established a body of odious 'case law' that not only makes of people mere legal abstractions; it robs us of what it means to be human. In doing so, SCOTUS has guaranteed that it will play its utterly dishonorable role in many catastrophes yet to play out. Bertolt Brecht had people like SCOTUS in mind when he wrote: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!" Five ideologues on the 'high court' are crooks! Those five ideologues are either crooks or idiots --possibly both.

It was not so long ago that yet another Gulf disaster was unfolding amid justified fears that it would reach biblical proportions. But this article is not about BP nor the Gulf though BP is all but off the hook and the Gulf seems unlikely to return to normal in our lifetimes --if ever!

In terms of the age of the universe some 251 million years ago is just a recent event. It was then --the so-called Permian extinction --that a 'mammoth undersea methane bubble' literally burst destroying in the process some 95 percent of all life on Earth, primarily by poisoning the atmosphere. It was the greatest mass extinction in world history.

I am reminded at these critical junctures of William Faulkner who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950, a time in which we rightly feared the imminent end of earth and mankind by way of a Nuclear Holocaust.
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed--love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

--William Faulkner: Nobel Prize Speech, Stockholm, Sweden, December 10, 1950

William Faulkner: Nobel Prize Acceptance s Speech, 1950

1950 was also the year that the great Philosopher Bertrand Russell was honored.

Bertrand Russell: Nobel Prize Acceptance, 1950

We simply cannot and must not tolerate the proliferation of the panoply of horrendous and environmentally disastrous weapons of war. These weapons cannot and will not be confined to battlefields. Indeed, the battlefield itself has become any target -military or civilian -that murderous military militants can target globally. This level of mass and official psychopathy is untenable, completely unacceptable. We must will ourselves to become sane! Only a global revolution will save us. The question is: how does one wage a war against these monsters and win?

I would hope that it is yet too early to search out that 'last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening' from which to view that last blood red sunset. Nevertheless, it must be clearly understood that we simply cannot tolerate another BP disaster. As we write and debate, the margin for error declines in an ever steeper curve. At some point on that curve, a point that is yet unknown, we may never return.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Part Tinker Bell, Part Predator Drone: The Fantasy of the Presidency as Deus ex Machina

by Guest Columnist,Phil Rockstroh

The devices employed in US election cycles and its national politics, in general, are akin to the dramatic conventions of children's theatre. Every two to four years, voters are instructed to clap their hands and believe in Tinker Bell. "Children, you have to believe -- you really, really have to believe in Tinker Bell." But behind the stagecraft is oligarchy. President Obama took millions from Goldman Sachs, et al. If there is a Captain Hook in this show, it is those Wall Street pirates who threw the global economy to the crocodiles for their ill-gotten gains.

Of course, this is a tired, old show, riddled with shopworn devices, performed by a rotating cast of hacks. Ronald Reagan set the fool's gold standard of a president playacting the role of populist, matinee hero -- Clinton, Bush, and Obama all learned from him -- as, all the while, he, in reality, went about the business of protecting and enhancing the holdings of the moneyed elite.

In Reagan's case, this con game was both an act of inspired career advancement and banal casuistry. Reagan, b-grade actor that he was, was never deep enough to harbor any belief he wasn't paid to evince. By professional necessity, he convinced himself he believed those bright and shining lies and polished platitudes he pitched to a public of credulous marks; for this is the mode of mind of effective salesmen and good showmen ... having the ability to conflate shallow self interest with the good of all.

Such self-deception -- played out as public legerdemain and state stagecraft -- is now the modus operandi of media age presidencies. The effect of this transformation, from executive gravitas to virtual playacting, has been somewhat less than salubrious for the health of the republic. When, for example, an American city drowns in floodwater and Americans are drowning in economic woes, US presidents know how to act like a president -- but not act as president. The soundbites make the man; not the man makes the soundbites.

Thus far, Obama's role has been to front the status quo. Whose interest do you think he had in mind when he picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as his top economic advisors? Hint: not those who clutch a subway strap nor sit stranded in freeway traffic, in bank-financed motor vehicles, on their daily commute to and from work.

Presidents, as is the case with all people, internalize the social and cultural architecture of their times. Reagan, the actor, had to find a way to believe what movie industry scriptwriters and film directors wanted from him insofar as the creation of character -- and, during the cold war and McCarthy era witchhunts, when G.E. and other defense industry giants started writing his checks (after his movie career died a lackluster death) he performed his role as resolute cold warrior as requested. And he, as has every president since, became a shill and enabler of the national security state.

Barack Obama's transformation from progressive hope-monger to status quo water-carrier should not come as a shock. It would be nearly impossible for the US populace, chief executives included, not to have internalized the tenets of the corporate capitalist/consumer empire. This corporate structure is as pervasive internally as it is extant. It exists as both outer architecture and inner psychological imprinting. Therefore, corporatism is as real to us as the deep forests and its woodland gods were to European pagans and The Church and its dogma was to the peasants of the Dark and Middle Ages.

The circumstances of the present era, like the ancient belief in the acts of self-involved gods whose doings were heedless to the fate of mere mortals, are larger than us and will not cede to our demands to behave with compassion or even sanity. To name but one example: The earth's oceans are suffering, many oceanographers say dying, due to the death cult calculus of runaway capitalism. In essence, we are confronted by a situation in which we experience abject powerlessness. An aura of unease and anomie prevails.

This unease contributes to a desperate fantasy of the presidency as deus ex machina. The right's deification of Reagan cast the fantasy into the realm of bughouse raving: The dead president as savor zombie. The belief that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union with 1940's era movie jibes and bromides is such a preposterous fantasy ... that it evokes one of my own: Ronald Reagan, endlessly imprisoned in a soundbite loop in Hell, throwing back his shoulders, doing that portrayal of manly resolve he wore out during his time in office ... then bandying into the indifference of eternity, this variation of his patented platitude, "Mr. Devil, tear down this wall of fire."

What is the emotional toil taken by the reality that in life, unlike theatre, there will be no sudden plot reversal brought about by a device of deus ex machina? In these desperate imaginings, we demand our president both lay on hands to heal the wounds inflicted by capitalism and smite our perceived enemies abroad. We insist he be not only a steely eyed warrior-king but our collective killer Christ.

Democratic presidents, and their handlers and advisers, become possessed of this errant archetype as well. Hence, according to the fantasy, to be viable as commander-in-chief, they are driven to prove their toughness, preferably, in some he-man display of resolute stupidity. They must prove they have a pair of killer/redeemer god balls -- which might be termed, Christesticles -- by bombing somebody -- anybody. At present, it appears this fraternity of hubris-blinded killer clowns has Iran in their cross hairs.

The act of imagining enemies serves as distraction from the angst arising from the vast economic inequities of life in the contemporary US. This is the good versus evil, dramatic conventions of the children's theatre of our politics: We boo the villains -- and are instructed to clap our hands to bring about an intervention by supernatural forces ... In this case, in the form of an action hero/magical being to do our killing: a deity -- who is part Tinker Bell, part predator drone.

But our situation is closer to that of the flawed protagonists in Waiting For Godot -- Samuel Becket's brilliant take on the self-deception at work within the alienated hearts of those who believe their suffering will be assuaged by the arrival of a god-like being. The last lines and final stage instructions of the play are emblematic of the Obama presidency:

VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?

ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.

(Stage direction: They do not move.)

Obama and the Democrats do not move. They do not act. They do not govern. They do not serve their constituents.

Although, in reality, they do serve their true constituents ... the corporate elite -- the forces behind the rising level of authoritarian control over the lives of the people of the nation, both of ordinary citizens and the political class. In situations of veiled coercion, where unspoken threats to one's economic security and social standing are the primary motivating factors determining an individual's response to an exploitive system, there is no need to threaten potential dissenters with crude, old school totalitarian methods of repression such as forced deportment to labor and reeducation camps. In the class stratified, debt shackled US work force, where the personal consequences of financial upheaval are devastating, the implicit threat of being cast into the nation's urban gulag archipelago of homelessness coerces most into compliance with the dictates of the corporate oligarchs.

The effects are insidious. In such an environment, there is no call for the Sturm und Drang of mass spectacle, replete with blazing torches and blown banners hoisted by serried ranks of jut jawed, jack-booted ubermensch: corporatism establishes an authoritarian order by way of a series of overt bribes and tacit threats. This social and cultural criteria causes an individual to become cautious. A Triumph of the bland reigns. Obama's bland, non-threatening charm was cultivated in this hybrid, corporate soil.

As is the case with Obama, corporatism demands employees (and Obama is first among us underlings) render themselves fecklessly pleasant. This is the mandatory mode of being demanded of corporate hires -- self-annihilation by habitual amiability. And Barack Obama has perfected the form.

In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama stated that he learned early: Never scare old, white people ... that is a good description of how he has dealt with BP and the banksters, and all the other old white men in their perches of privilege and power.

Obama, as was the case with Bill Clinton, will not challenge the corporate oligarchs. Both he and Clinton are gifted, intelligent men, but are products of their time. They are men of, what was once termed, "modest birth" who -- out necessity to rise past the circumstances of their origins -- studied, internalized, and made allegiance to the corporate structure. Why? Because, in the age of corporate oligarchy, they knew the only way to rise to power would be to serve its interests. In contrast, FDR came from the ruling class; he knew their ways ... wasn't tempted by the rewards and adulation that come with privilege. He was born into it, could never lose its advantages, and it held no novelty for him.

I'm not positing Clinton was simply a shallow narcissist, as was a fashionable invective aimed at his hulking frame and over-sized persona during his tenure as POTUS ... such palaver was so much shadow projection on the part of the vampiric careerists of the Washington-New York nexus of blood-sucking media undead. Rather, Clinton was a big talent. He was Byronic in his expansive nature. And like Byron he could claim, in all honesty, he could love a thousand women (and not only women, but varieties of constituents) in a thousand different ways, all at once. He was a romantic at heart in an age of crackpot realists. He was a large presence in a small-minded time. And this is how his trouble in the 1990s, and ours, in the present time, began.

When the Cold War ended, and the arrogant fantasies of neoliberal capitalism were ascendant, virtuoso of the zeitgeist that Clinton was, his prodigious wings caught those heady updrafts and he took the nation on an Icarian flight of Reaganesque economic deregulation, that would, later, contribute to the spiraling fall -- known, at present, as "the economic downturn."

Clinton could have used some saturnine apprehension regarding the dark side of capitalism, rather than the intoxication gained from the provisional, mutually serving alliances he made with his Wall Street bubble salesmen buddies, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner.

Clinton's periodic, erotic contretemps were not the problem; it was his and his advisor's flights of economic fancy that had real consequences for those of us who live at ground level among the debris and ash resultant from the inevitable fiery crash of their vanity and cupidity.

Enter Obama when the bubble burst. The stage is set for sweeping reform. Instead, we have received faux populist bromides, as all the while, behind the scenes, he has gone about the business of accommodation, capitulation, and general lickspittle boot-buffing of the corporate class.

If you listen closely, you might hear, all the way from the realm of the damned below, Ronald Reagan cackling in glee over it with his lower order demon companions from within their eternal prison of flames.

Spread the word

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Walter Cronkite et al Covers Watergate: HUSH MONEY

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

CBS news anchor, Walter Cronkite, who died in 2009 at age 92, played a key role in reporting what is known as the Watergate Scandal. His extensive stories were aired in 1972.

As this video indicates, subsequent reports owned as much to Cronkite as well as the Washington Post team of Woodward and Bernstein. Former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee, credited Cronkite with convincing people that 'Watergate' was a substantial story, a story of national importance.
"In October 1972, Cronkite devoted two segments, back to back, to the Watergate story. The first was 14 minutes, the second eight. I think that second night was curtailed by CBS chairman William S. Paley because Paley was scared of it. The fact that Cronkite did Watergate at all (let alone at that length) gave the story a kind of blessing, which is exactly what we needed—and exactly what The Washington Post lacked. It was a political year, and everyone was saying, "Well, it's just politics, and here's the Post trying to screw Nixon." We were the second-biggest newspaper in the country trying to scramble for a good story—whereas Cronkite was the reigning dean of television journalists. When he did the Watergate story, everyone said, "My God, Cronkite's with them."

--Ben Bradlee, Former Editor Washington Post

Watergate Recalled: Hush Money

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009




Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Sunday, August 22, 2010

911 Inside Job Chronicles

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" This must be too easy. The significance of this single sentence is apparently lost on several generations of Americans who will believe all kinds of weird stuff for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Michael Shermer, for example, has made a living as a career 'skeptic' but on the topic of 911, his record is no better than that of the most gullible Americans who defend Bush's official conspiracy theory with more lies and violations of Occam's Razor. Like the average American, Shermer bought into at least two bald-faced lies advanced by the Bush administration. Shermer failed to apply the 'burden of proof''; he did not bother to question fatal contradictions that discredit the Bush administration as they, in fact, disprove the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911.

Only the guilty are sufficiently motivated to cover up a crime. By contrast, the innocent have nothing to cover up! In some cases, the innocent may be motivated to discover the truth even as guilty criminals work to subvert their efforts. The guilty, by contrast, are motivated to work covertly and/or overtly to cover up, hide evidence and/or lie! The innocent have nothing to hide but nothing to gain and, often much to lose, with lies and cover ups. Simply, the innocent have no motive to cover up anything.

Bush ordered physical evidence of mass murder and/or high treason destroyed. Bush opposed the creation of the 911 Commission and worked to subvert it when it was created. It was Bush who warned against 'outrageous conspiracy theories' when, in fact, it was his administration that offered up the most outrageous conspiracy theory of them all: a ludicrous story that reads like a re-write of Ala Baba and his 40 thieves. It is the pernicious legacy of 911 that it was exploited by Bush, the GOP, the U.S. right wing to silence dissent, to silence America.

If Bush covered up and/or obstructed the investigation of the crime of 911 in any way, then he is guilty of acts of obstruction of justice intended to hide the truth in ways that would protect him or his 'friends' or both. 'Obstruction of justice' was one of several serious allegations against Richard Nixon, leading to articles of impeachment, eventually his ignominious resignation.

Certainly, the crime of 911 should have been investigated while the trail was still warm; a legitimate President would have ordered it, insisted upon it. The trail has grown cold, an outcome desired by an administration that opposed the creation of a 911 commission and put limits on it as a condition of its creation!
The evidence includes the unprecedented nature of what happened that day, the eyewitness testimonies of people present at the site, and the physical evidence demonstrated by photographs and videos. 1, 2 Evidence for explosives is also given through proof by contradiction in that seven years of ever-changing government reports could not provide a non-explosive story for destruction of the WTC buildings. 3, 4, 5 More recently, peer-reviewed scientific papers show that energetic materials were present at the WTC, as indicated by the environmental data and the dust from Ground Zero. 6, 7, 8

The forensic investigation of explosions typically aims to determine who had the means, opportunity and motive to accomplish the explosive event. 9 When that approach is taken with the WTC, we can see that those who had the greatest means and opportunity also had the greatest motive. For example, we've seen that certain tenant companies that occupied the WTC towers not only had the opportunity, but they also had the means in terms of access and expertise, to place explosives in the buildings. 10 We also know that the security companies that were responsible for planning and implementing the security plan for the towers, after the 1993 bombing, appeared to have benefited from the attacks. 11 Additionally, the companies reviewed were connected to each other through certain powerful people and organizations, and had all done major work for the Saudi Arabian government.

--KEVIN RYAN, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup
In the days and weeks following 911, Bush ordered the destruction of 911 evidence --on its face obstruction of justice!
Other than subsection 1512(c), there are three federal statutes which expressly outlaw the destruction of evidence in order to obstruct justice: 18 U.S.C. 1519 prohibits destruction of evidence in connection with federal investigation or bankruptcy proceedings, 18 U.S.C. 1520 prohibits destruction of corporate audit records, and 18 U.S.C. 2232(a) prohibits the destruction of property to prevent the government from searching or seizing it.

None of the three are RICO or money laundering predicate offenses.334 There are no explicit statements of extraterritorial jurisdiction for any of them, but the courts are likely to conclude that overseas violation of their provisions are subject to prosecution in this country. None of them feature an individual conspiracy component, but all of them are subject to general federal law governing conspiracy, principals, accessories after the fact, and misprision.335 Obstruction of Investigations by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1519). Where subsection 1512(c) condemns obstruction of federal proceedings by destruction of evidence, Section 1519 outlaws obstruction of federal investigations or bankruptcy proceedings by such means. Section 1519’s language suggests that it reaches only executive branch investigations and does not extend to Congressional investigations or judicial investigations such as those conducted by a federal grand jury. It declares:
    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Although its “relation to or contemplation of” clause may admit to more than one construction, the section’s elements might be displayed as follows:
I. Whoever II. knowingly III. A. alters, B.destroys, C. Mutilates

-- Obstruction of Justice: an Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes that Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
The Bush conspiracy theory of 911 is shot-through with holes, unexplained anomalies and outright lies. Certainly, a definitive list of every falsehood, every distortion, every misstatement is beyond the scope of any article I might put on this blog. What may be done, however, is to categorize them --the three most obvious and fatal holes, the three legs without which the tripod will not stand.

A 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon!

Johnny Cochran said: "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" Likewise, if there is no wreckage, the Bush cover story falls apart. Similarly, if there is no wreckage traceable to a 757, then you must discard the Bush official conspiracy theory. The house of cards has already collapsed.

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, the wings would have been found on the Pentagon lawn. They were never found!

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, two huge titanium/steel alloy engine rotors, each about 12-15 ft in diameter, would have been recovered; they were, after all, designed to withstand the intense heat inside jet engines. Those rotors were never found.

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, wreckage totaling about 60 to 80 tons would have been recovered, and, as was the case at Lockerbie and every other airliner crash, re-assembled as a part of a real investigation. Upon orders from George W. Bush no such investigation was ever undertaken.

Only one engine compressor rotor was found. It is about one third the size of each of two rotors that would have been found had a 757 crashed the Pent. High rez photos of this single rotor are available on the intenet.

It is --however --just about the right size to have been left behind by a U.S. Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, in fact, flown from the west coast to Australia (where it was landed) all completely by remote control. [The U.S. Global Hawk, at right, painted to look like an AA airliner]

If Arab hijackers were known by name and additionally 'known' to have been on board Flt 77, it is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they were autopsied as were other victims. In fact, there are no Arab names whatsoever on the only official, admissible document relating to the crash of Flt 77: the official autopsy report.

What about a passenger list? It proves nothing; anyone can type up a list of names at any time, even after the fact. If, as the Washington Post reported, Hani Hanjour did not have a ticket, how did he get on board? What evidence is there that any hijacker at any time ever boarded any aircraft that was said to have been connected with 911.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour or any alleged 911 hijacker ever got on board Flight 77. None! No wonder Bushco was reluctant to press this case. No wonder Bushco overtly obstructed justice! No wonder Bushco seemed overly eager to shut everyone up! They succeeded in doing so because the GOP has a horrible record with respect to public education and because the U.S. media is concentrated in very, very few hands. Last time I checked, American mass media was concentrated in the hands of about six or seven huge corporations. These corporations are not likely to expose the murderous hoax that was 911.

The wings and tail are huge surfaces areas --certainly bigger than the tiny hole said by official conspiracy theorists to have been the impact point! The hole would not have accommodated the fuselage, let alone the wings and tail which might have broken off to be found on the lawn. Nor was there any significant damage that might have been attributed to either wings or tail section or both. Neither was there evidence of wings or tail section!

There was a 'punch out' hole in the inner ring but could not have been made by a 757! Oddly, there is apparently no debris remaining of whatever it was that made the punch-out hole in the inner ring. I am quite sure that whatever it was, Bush ordered that it be carted off and destroyed.

Even if the plane had 'shredded' --as some have claimed --'80 tons of plane is still 80 tons of debris'.
"Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building."


Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.


The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003)

--The Missing Wings, A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004), A. K. Dewdney, G. W. Longspaugh

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see left) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

--A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered at the Pentagon. Something was carted off surreptitiously under a blue tarpaulin but I doubt seriously that the four or five white-shirted wimps were toting some 60 to 80 tons of wreckage that would have been left behind by a crashed 757. Whatever they were carrying 1) it's origin would not be revealed; 2) it was light enough to carried aloft by several skinny guys in pristine white shirts; 3) it could not possibly have come from a 757.

Bushco efforts to confront and/or confound critics of the Pentagon crash are increasingly ludicrous. The fuselage of Flt 77, they say, vaporized. Any reputable engineering department and any reputable engineering website will confirm the fact that the Aluminum will not vaporize at temperatures less than 11000 degrees F. NASA is on record stating that 11000 degrees F is 1000 degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun! At the same time, Bushco defenders say that both passengers and hijackers were DNA identified. But DNA literally 'melts' (the term used in the scientific literature) at various temps between about 400 to 500 degrees F.

Now --if the temperatures were sufficient to vaporize the airliner fuselage, no DNA tests would have been possible. Simply, either the fuselage vaporized or the DNA tests were made. Bushco advocates cannot have it both ways. I only cite this as an example of the ludicrous extremes to which defenders of the official conspiracy theory have devolved, what extremes and contradictions they are willing to embrace to defend what is clearly several acts of high treason and mass murder that any reasonable, intelligent person will conclude was ordered and supervised by Bush, his administration and his co-conspirators in private industry, the Military-Industrial Complex and, quite possibly, the so-called 'Jewish Lobby'.

Aluminum Does Not Penetrate Hardened Steel

The criminals who perpetrated 911 exploit GOP subversions of education, especially the Bush/Perry regimes in Texas. When crimes of the magnitude of 911 are committed, it is only the GOP which benefits from its neglect of education, especially science, physics, logic, skepticism.

Only a controlled demolition looks like a controlled demolition. And WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition because it was 'pulled' just as Silverstein himself said it was. And if it was 'pullled', it had to have been 'prepped', that is, explosives planted and wired perhaps weeks in advance of the so-called 'terrorist attacks'.

There is --in fact --not a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous theory that it fell as a result of piddly random fires that might have been pissed out!
For those who are not yet ready to make the commitment to obtain and read a book on 9/11, but who wish to learn more, a ten-minute solution is available. It only takes a few minutes to view video on the Internet of the collapse of Building 7, the 47 story skyscraper located immediately north of the WTC complex about 300 feet from the North Tower. Viewers will note the almost vertical collapse of the building. Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.

After viewing the video, many will agree with Dan Rather who said on CBS News that very evening that the collapse of Building 7 was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

--Ronald Bleier, WTC Building 7 – The 911 Smoking Gun?
I deny that there is any credible evidence to support the theory that an airliner with a soft aluminum body could or can penetrate the dense steel outer 'cladding' of the WTC. And --if by a miracle it did --it most certainly could not have penetrated the dense inner core conveniently omitted from 'official theories'! This 'omission' is not competent if by accident; it is a crime if the omission is deliberate! In any case, it's existence disproves the official lies.

Purdue University 'Forgot' About a Dense Core at WTC

The most notorious instance of omission of this core is a You Tube video which claims to have been produced by Purdue University. The 'copy' on You Tube claims to be 'realistic' and 'factual' but, in fact, is neither! It depicts a soft-bodied aluminum airliner slicing through the dense steel cladding. In the version I watched, the CORE had been omitted entirely, a case of 'truth by animation'. I deny that this 'toon is realistic or factual. I challenge Purdue to cite a single peer-reviewed paper in which soft aluminum has penetrated hardened steel at any speed. Show me the science and spare me the 'toons.

I carry a Swiss army knife. The blades are made of hardened steel --not Aluminum. That's because Aluminum is not likely to penetrate anything that I might want to cut. Soft Aluminum airliner bodies, likewise, were never designed to penetrate hard, dense steel and 911 is most certainly not the test case that proves it does, will or ever has. Since the Wright brothers aircraft of any sort have been made of lighter weight and softer materials. Airliners are not made of hard, dense steel but aluminum --lighter, less dense, softer. Wenger and Victorinox are not likely to begin the manufacture of aluminum bladed Swiss Army knives any time soon.

Defenders of Bush's ludicrous weird, witch doctor science, however, have an 'explanation'. They say that 'kinetic energy' allows soft aluminum to penetrate hard steel!


They have watched too many roadrunner cartoons in which the wily coyote falls off a cliff, penetrates the hard ground leaving a hole in the shape of his silhouette! The real world is not a Road Runner 'toon nor is it a fantasy of Purdue under-graduates.

The truth is that gains in kinetic energy are absorbed by the softer body. In this case, a real airliner striking a tough steel cladding would have been shredded, those parts striking the hard steel would absorb the increased kinetic energy due to velocity and would literally fold up; those pieces striking spaces between the steel columns would penetrate only the empty spaces. Were the building solid steel, the soft Al body would simply fold up and fall down to street level.

Try hurling a ball of modeling clay at a metal garage door. If you are Mickey Mantle reincarnated you might knock down the door if it is merely propped up or poorly attached. But you will never, ever penetrate the door itself. Try it! There is no record of anyone penetrating a metal garage door with a ball of non-hardening modeling clay.

Another experiment. Replace the lead slug of a 30 caliber round with one of aluminum. Fire that round at a steel beam comparable to those at the WTC. Let me know if it ever penetrates the steel! Lotsa luck! I don't expect to hear from anyone performing this experiment nor will I ever read a 'peer-reviewed' paper validating such an experiment.

Soft aluminum fuselages, likewise, will never slice through the girders themselves as the official conspiracy suggests or states.

Condo LIES to Congress

If the official conspiracy theory of 911 were true, then Condo Rice would have had no motive to lie to Congress.

By the time I saw 'ground zero' for myself, every scrap had been carted off! I peered into a deep and pristine hole! An individual cannot cover up his/her crimes on this scale. But Bushco --his administration of fellow crooks like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld --covered up the crime of 911 in 'full view of the world'. The American 'sheeple' bought it!

Instead, Shermer has discounted Bush critics as 'conspiracy theorists' despite the fact that the official theory puts forward a weird and highly unlikely conspiracy involving 19 Arab hijackers who were, we are told, coordinated from deep inside a cave in Tora Bora. It was a bad re-write of the old Popeye cartoon: 'Ali Baba and his 40 Thieves'.

The official conspiracy theory thus meets Conan Doyle's standard by which bunkum and bullshit is exposed and assessed. Every key point in the theory is utterly impossible. Nothing in the official story is possible or plausible. It could not and did not happen. It is a lie, a cruel and tragic hoax. It was, in fact, an act of high treason in which officials of 'our' government conspired to wage war upon and murder citizens of the United States.

In summary: to believe the official conspiracy theory, you must discount or ignore numerous laws of elementary, high school physics:
  1. You must believe that kerosene fires will melt steel though this has never happened or been duplicated in a lab.
  2. You must believe that Hani Hanjour can duplicate for real Criss Angel's most famous 'trick' --that of walking through solid glass or, better, David Copperfield who walked through the Great Wall of China.
I know how Copperfield pulled it off but --you have to admit --there were more witnesses to his feat than there were witnesses to Bush's 911. And when Copperfield walked through the Great Wall no life was sacrificed for the sake of mere illusion or worse --control of world oil supplies!

Let's consider a few of these anomalies that render the official theory not only impossible but ludicrous. The belief in it should embarrass anyone claiming to be a skeptic, humiliate any 'scientist' failing to point out the astronomically improbable succession of miracles that are required for such a thing to happen.

To believe Bushco's 'not ready for Vegas' routine:
  1. You must believe that a 757 can crash into the Pentagon and disappear without a trace.
  2. You must believe that soft aluminum can penetrate hard steel despite the fact that if that were so Wenger would make the blades of its Swiss Army knives of Aluminum.
  3. You must believe that for some weird and un-recorded reason airlines decided to press into service flights that had not been scheduled to fly (mothballed) for some six months.
  4. You must believe that Arab hijackers were either 'raptured' or jumped out of Flt 77; there are absolutely no Arab names on the official autopsy report.
  5. You must believe the aluminum body of a 757 vaporized as no scrap traceable to an airliner of any sort was ever found at the Pentagon.
  6. You must believe that Hani Hanjour got on board without a ticket and without creating any kind of suspicion prior to his boarding. Perhaps he made himself invisible!
  7. You must believe that Hani Hanjour, like David Copperfield, walked through a closed door! NTSB data released via an FOIA proves that the cabin door was never opened during the flight. How did Hani get in? For that matter --how did he get on board? There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that he did! Nor is his name or the names of any other 'terrorist/Arab' to be found on the only official list of passengers --the OFFICIAL autopsy report.
  8. You must believe that Flt 77 managed to manifest itself in two places at the same instant: NTSB puts Flt 77 at some 200 ft above the Pentagon at the time of impact.
  9. You must believe that because no fuselage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon, it must have 'vaporized' in the heat.
  10. You must believe that the source of that heat was greater than that on the surface of the sun itself --some 10000 degrees F.
And while believing that the fuselage vaporized, you must also believe that victims were DNA identified. But --how is that possible? DNA literally melts at varying temps between about 400 to 500 degrees F.

So --which is it? Were they DNA ID'd? Or did the Aluminum fuselage vaporize?

Which is it?

It cannot be both ways! In fact, it is neither! This merely proves how utterly ludicrous is this theory and more so because seemingly 'intelligent' people believe this utter crap!

Silverstein had Method, Motive and Opportunity.

About New York --WTC 7 was not struck by airliners; yet its collapse was reported by the BBC before it occurred. But why did it collapse? It was prepared well in advance as any CD expert will tell you is required. Who else but Silverstein could have taken out the insurance policy on this property?

If WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition, so were the Twins!

Silverstein is even on video saying that he gave the order to pull it! Indeed --it was pulled immediately upon his order. That means that the building had been prepped, perhaps, for weeks. I would like to have read his policy. What, precisely, was covered? Was the building ensured against deliberate controlled demolition. If so, he could have ordered it 'pulled' at any time at his convenience. I doubt any company would write such a blank check. The policy, I am quite sure, covered 'acts of God' --but 'terrorism'? Perhaps! It most certainly would not have covered a fraudulent act of deliberate demolition for the purpose of collecting the insurance money. There is a term for that: INSURANCE FRAUD! As I recall, his insurance policy was worth $billions$ which have by now, I am sure, been paid.
I consider the many falsehoods of the official report. I disregard the official theory and start from scratch. At the end, I make a number of conclusions, most notably the assertion that no hijackers participated.

I rely upon Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records, which indicate clearly that two of the flights associated with 9/11, United 175 and United 93, were scheduled to fly that day and that the other two flights, American 11 and American 77, were not scheduled.

The BTS records are half of the key to determining where the planes went. The other half is the proof that none of the targets (World Trade Centers One and Two, the Pentagon and Shanksville) were struck by any planes resembling the ones allegedly used for these four flights. The following are a series of if-then propositions that I constructed as to the planes and passengers and my reasoning for using the assumptions that I made: IF Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled, then neither 11 nor 77 flew

It would be unlikely for plotters to use planes that were not scheduled to be used on September 11th. Of course the plotters could have arranged to use unscheduled flights, but how would the passengers have learned of them without being suspicious or without being involved?

Plotters could have had the idea that controlling two planes was much easier than controlling four. They may then have decided to pretend that two other flights were used by using false ³ blips´ on the Federal Aviation Administration computer screens, by taking advantage of simulations going on throughout the east coast (including Delta 89, now widely thought to be a simulated flight used to distract from others) and by faking phone calls from planes that did not fly.

IF passengers actually went on flights, then the passengers may be accounted for I have yet to see any proof of tickets bought by the alleged passengers, boarding passes or videotape from surveillance of any of the airports where the alleged passengers left from. Furthermore, no independent expert has ever verified any remains of any of the alleged passengers at any of the ³crash sites.´

And, the phone calls associated with the flights could have been handled by a few passengers, or even by voice ³morphing.´ A low number of passengers are on the Social Security Death Index. The best evidence of passengers actually flying on any of the planes in question, interestingly, comes from eyewitness accounts of passengers at the Cleveland Airport that morning.

My First Conclusion: The Official Theory Is False

Like most people, I did not question whether planes were used in the events of 9/11 when I heard the news. I doubt the idea crossed my mind for a long time. In all of the news, much was made of the flight numbers, specific passengers and the constant image on television screens of a plane striking the south tower.
But after researching the matter, I discovered that official story simply had too many holes in it to be accurate. The following contains a partial list of problems

-- Misdirection: Following the Plot, Execution and Cover-up of 9/11 Crimes
By Dean T. Hartwell
Back to Michael Shermer.

The above outline of absurdities re: 911 should have been taken up by real skeptics. That Michael Shermer took up the task of defending myth, lies, absurdities and anti-science, speaks volumes.

Shermer built his career upon the conflict between creationism and evolution, light work for anyone with a normal IQ. Making fools of people like Sarah Palin is hardly a challenge for anyone capable of graduating 9th grade. Shermer tripped up with regard to 911 because he failed to abide by the only dictum which defines true skepticism: those who assert must prove! Shermer failed the very first task of the skeptic and that is: demand proof! At the very least --evidence!

A review charged that Shermer 'offers very little in the way of direct evidence against creationism'! It is not the job of a skeptic to offer evidence against anything! It is the job of the skeptic to doubt, question and challenge. It is the job of the skeptic to demand proof and evidence for the absurd, outlandish, outrageous conspiracy theory that was promoted by the Bush administration. It is also the job of the skeptic to ask of those who peddle theories: who benefits if we buy this crap? Why and how do they benefit?

Those who assert must prove

I challenge Bush's supporters to prove their assertions. Those peddling or putting forward theories must be prepared to prove and/or support them with demonstrable fact. Bushco has never proven anything with regard to 911. Ergo: there is no reason to support or believe him or anything said by anyone in his administration. Bush supporters not only cannot prove, they have no evidence that supports the official theory. It's utter bunkum from the get go.

Again --Doyle's character --Sherlock Holmes --said:

"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!"
Sadly, millions of Americans believe a pack of lies because they just 'can't handle the truth!"