President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 11, 2007 03:14 PM UTC

September 11th, 2007 Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Today, we gather to be reassured that God hears the lamenting and bitter weeping of Mother America because so many of her children are no more. Let us now seek that assurance in prayer for the healing of our grief stricken hearts, for the souls and sacred memory of those who have been lost. Let us also pray for divine wisdom as our leaders consider the necessary actions for national security, wisdom of the grace of God that as we act, we not become the evil we deplore.”

–Rev. Nathan Baxter, Dean of Washington National Cathedral, 9/14/2001


143 thoughts on “September 11th, 2007 Open Thread

  1. Thank you my friends for carrying on in the tradition of many generations of brave patriots who also gave their lives for the preservation of freedom. Semper Fi.

  2. “Let us also pray for divine wisdom as our leaders consider the necessary actions for national security, wisdom of the grace of God that as we act, we not become the evil we deplore.”

    I guess you might say we are really, really, really bad at prayer, we certainly are the evil we deplore.  More than likely can be blamed and we can all feel the better for it.

    1. You speak only for yourself (did you know that), and your narcissistic self-loathing is inappropriate on this thread. 

      How about a kind thought for the victims of and the families affected by the terrorist attacks on 9/11?

      Unless you think they deserved it…. 

      1. I used “we” to keep from pointing fingers, then again, the American GI body count in Iraq has already exceeded the count at the WTC, Pearl Harbor and Normandy, since I am a military man and a combat veteran, I know what terror is and I use battlefield data to guage it.  By Petreaus logic and probably yours, the terrorists are winning, can’t kill them as fast as we are making them.  GI blood bad, Iraqi civilian blood, mind over matter, as in we don’t mind, they don’t matter.  As the Bush administration has been so successful in making 9/11 and Iraq synonymous, what can I say other than you are confused and overly emothional.  Might I suggest that as you watch the many ceremonies today, try as best you can, even through your tears, if necessary, to sing along when the choirs are singing “God Bless America.  It is bound to help in your conversion from laughing boy to mature adult.

        1. Don’t worry about me, or my perceived “confusion”.  You speak for nobody other than yourself.  Point fingers if you’d like, just point your own fingers. You know nothing of me personally, and you don’t corner the market on how veterans (like me) feel. 

          Try “as best you can, even through your tears, if necessary” not to be so condescending next post, and maybe we’ll continue a dialogue.

      2. but it takes a special breed of man to sacrifice everything your keyboard has, police this blog and point out the inappropriate and offensive, in service to this great nation and this great blog at its greatest time of need.  I salute you !

  3. …I’ve laughed at conspiracy theories, like the mob was the force behind killing JFK.  Now we learn that is indeed the case, Jim Garrison was onto something.

    That maybe people plotted the deaths of thousands of Americans for political purposes is repugnant to core of our collective beliefs.  And yet, the laws of physics and probabilities cannot be suspended, even by the CIA or whom/whatever. I can differentiate between conjecture without fact, and facts presented that can be verified, and how they fit into a bigger picture. 

    I found this video to be solid, unhysterical:….  Look for the scene where a vertical steel beam in the aftermath has that same 45 degree cut by thermite as done in demolition.  The collapse of Building 7, which was never hit by a plane, has the perfect fingerprint of demoliton.  Much, much more, as they say.

    A bit more radical is “9/11 In Plane Sight.”  It’s on YouTube, segmented:… The problem with the theory that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and not a 747 is, “What happened to a big plane and passengers?”  But when you look at the evidence, you cannot let such an improbabilty of disappearence alter the conclusion.  That’s what “they” are counting on, your refusal to replace incredularity with facts.

        1. Under our system it’s up to the suspicious to prove their suspicions, not the other way around. Don’t twist that around to score debate points.

          BTW you might as well define “advance knowledge of 9/11.” While only a fool would conclude that the government had no inkling that terrorists were in America planning something big, and there’s ample evidence that a plan like 9/11 was known to the Bush admin (that infamous briefing in August 2001), are you saying that they knew when and where?

          1. Ari: “Under our system it’s up to the suspicious to prove their suspicions, not the other way around. Don’t twist that around to score debate points.”

            The issue here was Laughing Boy’s facile dismissal, which fails the smell test because reasonable suspicions have not been in any substantive way allayed.  Reasonable suspicion is a long way from proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the path always starts there.

            Did Dick Cheney “plow the road?”  Stanley Hilton, lawyer and former chief of staff for Bob Dole, makes a pretty credible circumstantial case.  Problem is, if the Bush Administration did have a hand in staging it, it will never be investigated in a competent manner.

            1. If the conspirators went to the enormous trouble to meticulously plant explosives in the buildings, why fly the planes into them at all, exposing the conspiracy to thousands more witnesses?  Why not just have Bin Laden say he blew up the buildings?

              OK, that’s enough of Oz for me today.

              1. I agree with you entirely — ObL and his ragtag band would not have had either the technical expertise or requisite access to pull off such a feat.  Find even one piece of thermite, and the only possible suspect is the Bush Administration.

                Of course, if the Bush Administration was complicit in the crime, you’d expect them to destroy the evidence.  And that is precisely what we saw.  Not a single girder from Building 7 was saved for forensic analysis.  Not one.

                1. I’m done with this silly garbage.  Make sure your tinfoil hat is on or the black helicopters will be able to detect your ability to see the real “truth”.

                  1. …have you examined the evidence as presented by video?  If you have, then I’m fine with your disagreement.  If you haven’t, it reminds me of three monkeys.

          1. You ignore the last five years consequence of an invasion of the second largest oil reserves. I don’t recall a democrat being Commander In Chief during that time. You are being stupid.

    1. People get mad at me when I point out that Rudy Guiliani (a veteran prosecutor, who knows better!) ordered evidence to be destroyed, and that not even a single girder from Building 7 was preserved for metallurgical analysis. 

      In any other context, the spoliation of evidence is considered evidence pointing to guilt.

      Was our government “in on” 9/11?  No one can honestly say for certain, because the government destroyed all the salient evidence that might point to a controlled demolition. How convenient.

      If you trust this government, you are either a fool or a damn fool.

    2. For all those who wish to see how far the left has sunk.

      Go ahead, post your conspiracy theories.  It will be instructive for people to see just how far into the world of delusion your hatred will take you. 

      1. have questions about 9/11. (I’m not one of them.) But I think it’s instructive of where you’re coming from that you would jump all over this as proof of “how far the left have sunk” just because this was posted by a liberal. What would you have said if Gecko had posted it?

        1. Please don’t try to tell me that the conspiracy theorists are evenly distributed, right and left.  The numbers prove otherwise. 

          There are some conspiracists among the isolationist, “blame-the-jews” fever swamps of the fringe right.

          They’re just as deplorable.  The difference, however, is that it’s the fringe on the right and creeping into the mainstream of the left. 

            1. “The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.”


              1. this helps. (I meant to post this before 15 more comments popped up on this thread but sometimes the real world intrudes on blogging. 🙂

                But do you really believe that’s representative of the whole left? That still sticks in my craw.

                If I were asked, I’d say that the government knew a conspiracy was afoot and did (or were doing) very little to stop it. I think that had more to do with incompetence, inter-agency politics, and Bush’s general incompetence as a leader. I’d further say that the Bush admin took advantage of 9/11 to invade Iraq for reasons that had little if anything to do with either our national security or for regional stability in the  Middle East. But I don’t link the two in my mind.

                The conspiracy theorists (if we have to label them as such) are interesting because they don’t generally say “The government caused 9/11 for such-and-such reasons,” rather they say raise questions about how it all happened.

            2. 26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?
              The attacks were thoroughly investigated 
              Reinvestigate the attacks 
              Not sure 

              People are again closely divided, this time with a slight plurality (47%) saying the attacks were thoroughly investigated, while 45% feel the attacks should be reinvestigated. Nearly one in ten (8%) are not sure.

              Republicans (70%) and people with annual household income of $75,000 or more (64%) are the most likely to say the attacks were thoroughly investigated. Other majorities who agree include up to 58% of whites, 50-64 year-olds, residents of the East and West, college graduates and those with some college education, and people with annual household income of $50,000-$74,999.

              Majorities in several sub-groups feel the attacks should be reinvestigated. The most likely are Hispanics (67%) and African Americans (64%). Other majorities include up to 57% of Democrats and independents, 18-49 year-olds, residents of the Central/Great Lakes, high school graduates and those with less education. Between 56%-61% of people with household income less than $25,000 agree.

              Men are more likely to agree attacks were thoroughly investigated (51% to 42%), while women are more likely to say the attacks should be reinvestigated (48% to 43%).

              1. a competent investigation.  It would be nice to finally put this to bed (or in the case of government complicity, to bring the perpetrators to justice).  (We investigated Pearl Harbor a half-dozen times.)

                Is that really too much to ask?

                  1. I don’t care what the answer is; it’s a moot point, because we will never actually see a competent investigation.  Suffice it to say that there is no credible explanation for why Building 7 fell.  The damage from impact was cosmetic at best, and even the NIST investigators were baffled by its collapse.  In its official report on the collapse of WTC-7, FEMA concedes:

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

                    Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology government investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center building, is asked about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Sunder says that he hopes to release something about that by the end of 2006. He adds, NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses… We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.… But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” [New York Magazine, 3/20/06].

                    I would want to know why the damn thing fell, for the same reason why we wanted to know why Challenger blew up: to prevent a recurrence.  That we have no clue as to why this happened is a matter of serious concern even today, because there may be other structures at risk.

                    1. No steel reenforced building has every collapsed from impact or fire.  Ever. Some have burned for several days.  But we have three go down in one day, and one of them wasn’t even hit!

                      So, where’s that in the curved of probability? 

                    2. …seen a blast furnace?  How can ordinary flammable material melt steel?

                      Love when the lefties try to drop the science on you to justify some gigantic impossible conspiracy.

                    3. blast furnaces need coke, a man-made high temperature coal as you probably know, and a BLAST of air to get the combustion to attain “lift off.”  Won’t happen without those two factors.

                      Next explanation?

                    4. There is no forced draft in a skyscraper fire.  In fact, the fires are often somewhat oxygen deprived to to all the combustion byproducts in an enclosed space. You can see this by the carbon smoke, i.e. incomplete combustion.  Definitely not enough to melt steel, like a candle vs. a Bunsen burner.

                      Now, my oxyacetylene torch, 6000 degrees, about what thermite burns at.  Either will melt steel, obviously.

                    5. There were holes through the building and winds aloft in excess of 50 Mph.  The buildings in NYC act like a big venturi and funnel high winds all around the tops of those buildings.

                      Seriously – why plant explosives and then bother to crash the planes?  What a dumb plan!

                    6. Watch the video. It smoked for quite some with NO flames visible. An explosion was heard. It is completely plausible that the planes provided a compelling cover-up to the explosion that was plainly heard by trained NY firefighters. Remember the planes were flown by Saudi Arabians. The Bush family and the Saudi family are good friends. Remember the photos of W holding hands with a high ranking Saudi? Remember when the airspace was closed to all Americans, yet the Bin Laden family members were picked up and allowed to leave the country? These are undisputed facts.

                    7. But why not just blow up the buildings with everyone in them?

                      I’ve about reached the limit on the amount of time I will waste trying to prove that the world is round. 

                      There’s nothing I could point out that would make you reconsider your position.  Without a conspiracy, you’re forced to accept that we’re actually at war with actual evil.  Cut and dried truth isn’t really your specialty, is it?

                    8. We’re at war with Iraq…..EVERYONE….except it seems you, knows they had nothing to do with the bombing of the towers. Evil is invading a country and killing 10,000’s of innocent people. You would agree?

                    9. It’s evil if you’re White and Republican.

                      If you’re an Arab from Jordan, or suicide bombers from North Africa and Central Asia doing the invading and killing, well, that’s not evil – that’s “a legitimate response to oppression.”

                    10. There was a hole all the way through the building.  The wind howled through the middle of a fire that started by coating everything with jet fuel.

                      Why crash the planes into the tower if you’re just going to blow it up?  What if they missed the buildings?

                    11. I remember hearing they took all the asbestos out after they found it was crazy carcinogenic, and didn’t replace it with any other fire retardant material.

                      That might have something to do with it.

                      I stopped paying attention to the conspiracy-types when one tried to tell me what the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel was – and it was a temperature that was well below what I see regularly.

                    12. The asbestos was never removed as it was sprayed all over the complex floor beams and would have been very expensive. After the initial asbestos scares, folks finally realized that if the asbestos is undisturbed, it’s perfectly safe.  Recall also that asbestos was a major component of the debris.  It was just a thin layer, anyway, not like a serious thermal delta from the outer surface to the inner.

                      Now, what do you mean by “a temperature that was well below what I see regularly.”  ?????  The only time I “see” temperatures above the melting point of steel is when I weld.  The steel used was UL certified to exceed ASTM standard something or other, part of which is a higher melting point than most steels. The jet fuel, naturally aspirated, could not ever melt the steel enough to significantly weaken it.

                      Instead of dismissing out of hand someone’s statement that you seem to have other knowledge, waste a couple of hours and review the videos. You are an intelligent man.  You cannot reach any conclusion that is in line with the official report.

                    13. The 707 was the biggest plan of the late 1960’s which is what the towers were designed for.

                      According to Wikipedia, it weighed from 220,000 to 334,000 pounds at takeoff, depending on version.  No info on fuel capacity.

                      The 757 weighs from 255,000 to 273,000.  Fuel capacity is about 11,500 gallons.  I will propose that this is less than the 707 because of greater efficiencies in the 757.

                      So, the planes that hit the towers could weigh more or less than the 707.  I think that also fuel capacities are jiggered to meet the range needed on a flight plus some reserves.  A 757’s range of 3900 nautical miles would probably need a full tank to get to SF with a margin of safety.

                      Bottom line: no difference.


            3. 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance
              Friday, May 04, 2007

              Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

              Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.


          1. I never said they were evenly distributed – I have no idea what the distribution is. But I know from what I’ve read is that there are people on the right, in the middle, and apolitical who are into this. Don’t read what I didn’t write.

                1. LB, I’ve known Mike for several years, and I don’t appreciate you questioning his status as a vet. Back off, because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And as for your smartass remark “How do liberals compute terror?” I’ll tell you how.

                  An undeclared war justified by lies that has turned into an endless occupation.

                  Thousands of our nation’s finest men and women dead and tens of thousands more mangled and broken.

                  Wounded vets denied medical and health care they were promised and deserve.

                  The Bill of Rights dead and buried.

                  Phones tapped and email intercepted without warrants or legal justification.

                  The Geneva Conventions labeled “quaint.”

                  Electronic voting fraud and systematic voter suppression.

                  A spineless Congress and a corrupt Supreme Court majority.

                  Honest opposition to Bushco’s policies labeled treasonous.

                  A compliant corporate media that systematically obfuscates and ignores real news in favor of Paris Hilton.

                  Right wing fanatics who are working to turn America into a Dominionist theocracy.

                  Willfully complicit idiots who refuse to admit that the brown shirts from 1930’s Germany have become today’s conservatives without conscience.

                  Compute that, Laughing Boy.

                  1. You’re scaring me!

                    “Mike” is the one that started by inferring that as a combat vet that only he knows how to measure terror.  He’s not the only veteran here, and he doesn’t get to speak for anyone other than himself.  Sorry.

                    It was a ridiculous thing to say, and I called him on it – that’s the sarcastic ‘measurement’ reference I used in the passage you took issue with.

                    Judging from your other points, you’re a lunatic.  Nazi references immediately destroy someone’s credibility in my eyes in a political discussion.  Obviously, you may continue to do the reach-around with the other crazier elements on this board, but I’m done with you.

                    There are people here that I completely disagree with that I respect very much, and love the dialogue.  You and your silly friend are not in that class.  So, again, good luck.

                    1. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of self doubt.”  Bertrand Russell (paraphrasing)

                      The trouble with the quote is that it leaves out the majority as if they/I are not somehow involved or problematic.  The inference I made regarding my bonafides was necessary in order to show that even though I am neither stupid nor intelligent, I belong to a special and rare group of veterans that have killed with small arms, almost been killed with small arms, eaten out of cans or pouches, have gone weeks without a shower and lived with the reality that getting seriously wounded in early evening means waiting until morning for a MEDEVAC. Just living that is rare, coming away from it with a great spiritual lesson even rarer.  I came away from my tour with two arms, two legs, all my fingers and toes, I have some residual problems with cerebral malaria and some of my mind left and you’d be nervous/stressed too had you……  I commanded men in combat and lost some of them, that kind of guilt I wouldn’t wish on Sgt. Rock, much less an 18 year old barely out of Boy Scouts.  That is not to say a clerk typist in the Green Zone is not a vital cog in the wheel, it’s just that the clerk typist is less inclined to see the urgency in abolishing warfare. In my particular war (Vietnam) I had no idea that our AF had killed over three million North Vietnamese civilians, I can assure you had I known it when I had been there, I would have been much less enthusiastic about duty, honor and country.  I watch our troops in the streets of Baghdad dressed and looking like Starship troopers, accompanied by loud and terrifying armored vehicles, planes from above taking out whole city blocks, 50 caliber machine guns firing into one house and traveling through houses that had nothing to do with the first house.  The time for going native was in Afghanistan.  Iraq should have never happened.  Going native?  That’s when you dress and arm like the natives, leaves no confusion regarding the impression you have on the civilian population or the valor of your troops, wearing body armor doesn’t terrorize the enemy, it enrages them.  5 out of 10 airstrikes in Afghanistan have taken out civilians, that doesn’t terrorize the enemy it enrages them.  Those prone to be terrified become your worst enemy after awhile, they start looking at suicide as a means of killing you as noble.  Ask a Vietnam veteran if he was on a Firebase that got hit by a Sapper attack.  NVA Sappers make the Japanese Imperial Army look like pussies with body armor.  I know, I know, we’re Americans, we love life, we are great, we are noble, we are generous, Jesus loves us more than everyone else, we love life so much that we prefer our soldiers to live out their lives in Terri Shiavo conditions (sp) rather than the peace of the grave or HEAVEN. For people so convinced that there is a heaven sure are scared beyond words about death.  Don’t ask the Native Americans, the Mexicans, the Chinese Americans, the Irish right off the boat and especially don’t ask the African Americans about the Golden Rule and how it applies to non-whites.  As for me, I’m one of the lucky ones, I’m an Irish Eggplant. 

                    2. What in the world was that?  Sorry, but I don’t share your antipathy for the US.  Respect it, as I do your opinion.

                      Again, congrats for being a vet.

                    3. ……… was my way of saying that 9/11 proved beyond any doubt that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were weak on national defense.  Not only did they allow two planes to hit the WTC, they also allowed one to hit the Pentagon. They were not suitcase bombs, they were hijacked airliners and if you can’t shoot down unarmed, slow flying passenger jets, what’s the point of a $600 billion DOD, corporate welfare? They, not Bill Clinton were asleep at the switch.  How’s that for antipathy?????  When I see GWB or General Patreaus or Cheney or Rumsfeld on TV, I see nothing less than war criminals.  For those that don’t think that, my one and only thought is “complicity” 

                    4. ..I thought it was a conspiracy? 


                      You and I might actually be closer than you think. 

                      Does Clinton bear no responsibility for not taking out Bin Laden?

                    5. …but a prez doesn’t make all the nuts and bolts decisions in the field.  Tomahawks were fired into training camps, remember?  What more do you want?  Hand to hand combat?

                      Clinton gave permission to the CIA and the military to kill him if the opportunity arose.  Don’t even call at 3AM and ask permission, do it.

                      A good standing order from the Commander in Chief.

                    6. ..he didn’t give that order.  Have you read Patterson’s book?  He was supposedly asked multiple times but was either too busy watching golf, or was concerned about the legality of it.

                      To be fair, nobody had ever seen something like 9/11, but there’s plenty of blame to go around.

                      Except for the exploding pigeons.  That was Rove.

                    7. Here is what Snopes has to say about “Clinton did nothing” charges.  Note that he tripled the anti-terrorism budget.  Compare that to Condi’s response during the transition of (I’m paraphrasing)”Yeah, whatever.”


                    8. Here is what Snopes has to say about “Clinton did nothing” charges.  Note that he tripled the anti-terrorism budget.  Compare that to Condi’s response during the transition of (I’m paraphrasing)”Yeah, whatever.”


                    9. …as they dance with unrestrained glee catching BC in possible lie – forget how George Bush’s nose has grown to intergalactic dimensions – it seems that he gave permssion to us “lethal force” to capture OSB.

                      Of course the cons have perfect hindsight that we should have killed him, even though to that time he was a big pest, not a 9/11 killer.  (Whom Reagan and the sam cons supported in the 1980’s.)

                      Well, lethal force sounds awefully similar to kill.  Or does that mean that we could only kill his body guards? 

                      Picky, picky, picky.

                    10. ….written by a Quaker who was severely wounded in WWII. It is about his life long journey coming to grips with his injuries, both physical and mental, and examination of our ease in going to war.  Mostly, the mythology we use to perpetrate it, generation after generation.

                      I don’t often say “Thank you for your service.” It’s so often used for vets who really did nothing, like my friend a long time ago who served as a lifeguard at Cam Rahn Bay. But for you, I send that out hearfelt and hope your dark hours are fewer and fewer.

                      My best friend suffered horrible PTSD. I spent a year in the VA hospital mostly working with Viet Nam vets.  Those events have shaped me and my thoughts on war.

                      So, many, many thanks for what you have suffered through and your ability to step back and see what it was about instead of covering it up with more flag waving.  You are a real man.

                      BTW, could you break your interesting posts into paragraphs?  🙂

                    1. All you have are questions. 

                      Give me your best evidence in one sentence that should make me believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.  I’ll answer it.

                      Not anything to do with Bush, or Neocons, physical evidence that makes you believe in a conspiracy.

                    2. I should have known better. I guess I should have followed the philosophy of the immortal Danny Partridge, who said “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.” By the content of his posts, he obviously spends too much time listening to right wing talk radio. He sounds just like every caller I’ve ever heard, including my neo-con big brother.

                      Notice that he asked how liberals compute terror, and when I gave him a list that would scare the bejeezus out of anyone with half a brain, his response was to change the subject. Typical.

                    3. Present facts, they change the subject. Ask hard questions, and all to often they change the subject. Their calling liberals whiners is pure projection. Is it only a coincidence that republican and projection have the same number of letters? I wonder if republicans have mirrors in their houses? I jest.

              1. …of there being a conspiricy makes con’s brains hurt.  They can’t stand the ambiguity, lack of certainty, and mostly, a mockery of their world view and desire for stability. 

                Hence, they buy into the simple explanation, there ain’t nothing here folks, keep on moving.

      2. Jeez, Jack.  Have you lost possession of your facilities?

        This has nothing to do with hatred or left/right issues.  There are plenty of folk on both sides of the political fence who think all is not as it appears. And who is there to hate?

        May I note that you and LB are more concerned with shooting the messenger – me – than examining my propositions?

        Typical RW bullshit.

    3. Our friends on the “right” more often than not speak from their ideological belief and not from any true investigative experience. My guess is that they won’t take the time to watch this video. It has architects, engineers, first hand witnesses and many other very reliable sources that make it difficult to refute. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your beliefs?

      Thanks for posting the links Paul.

        1. I’ve also read the NIST and FEMA reports, and the 9/11 Truth Movement’s response to the Popular Mechanics report.  And as is the case with all government reports, it’s what they don’t say is what is the eventual “tale of the tape.”

          Building 7 is Huxley’s “ugly little fact.”

          If you read the NIST report, you might have noticed their methodology: “Let’s make the damage progressively worse, so that we can make the computer models fail.”  It’s been a while since I read it, but iirc, the only way that Buildings 1 and 2 could collapse using the computer models is if you presume the worst-case scenario.  This isn’t just cooking the books; this is Emeril on speed.

          Apparently, they did the same thing with Building 7. 

        2. PopularMechanics (from the link): “WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors – along with the building’s unusual construction – were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.”

          How do we know this?  Because PM says so?  Everyone knows how easily computer models can be cooked.  Has a scale mock-up been done?  Do we know how much damage was done to the building from the impact?

          You call this crap “proof,” Laughing Boy?

          It’s the methodology that bothers me the most.

              1. But this is truly moronic. 

                It’s so unbelievable that it’s become a career for so many people that it’s sad.  Lost in the masturbatory ceaseless idiotic questioning of an obvious terror attack is that 3000 people died.  Get a job.

        3. Engineers at Purdue University released a similar study showing the same thing, they have a simulation showing how it all worked as well. There is no conspiracy, those that think so are sick in the head.

          1. Let’s see, now….

            MIT produced a study, commissioned by FEMA and/or NIST, concluding that the loss of structural integrity from the jets’ impact on the core elements was about 10%.  In addition, the NIST team concluded that, despite the impact and the fires enhanced by over 20,000 gallons of jet fuel, the only way the Twin Towers could have collapsed was under what they called a worst-case scenario.

            By contrast, Building 7 wasn’t hit by anything (save for a rain of debris, inflicting mostly cosmetic damage), and the only material contributing to the fires was simple office equipment (20,000 gallons of fuel oil was recovered from the site and as such, did not contribute artificial accelerant).  More severe comparables from Caracas to Madrid prove that a mere office fire is clearly insufficient to cause a modern skyscraper to collapse.

            But yet, Building 7 did.

            As for the Purdue simulation, Kevin Ryan’s rebuttal is worth consideration  (http://svnlsenetter….).  These observations are classic:

            Apart from that small inadvertent success, these Purdue professors show that they do not understand even the simplest aspects of the WTC events, let alone the latest government story in support of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Professors Irfanoglu and Hoffman described the details of their project in a paper entitled “An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1?, published on the Purdue University website.[3] In this paper it is explained how the authors simulated the performance of WTC-1 during “the impact of American Airlines Flight 77?. Quite a feat, one might say, considering that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. …

            NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged by aircraft impact, and this was in their “more severe” case. Purdue now says that 52 core columns were “destroyed or heavily damaged” over a height six floors (see Irfanoglu and Hoffman, table 1). First note that there was a total of 47 core columns in the building. Even if several of these were “destroyed” at multiple levels, Purdue is now asking us to accept a level of damage that is far greater than years of government research could support.

            Suffice it to say that quality control isn’t exactly Job One at Purdue any more.

            Don’t focus on phantom missiles or death rays — the seemingly inexplicable collapse of Building 7 either proves or disproves the official theory.  Thus by implication, it either proves or disproves government involvement, as the hijackers couldn’t have and wouldn’t have (as Laughing Boy points out, and I concur) pulled off a controlled demolition.

            The Bush Administration could have been complicit by doing far less (specifically, by disabling the nation’s civil air defenses, as apparently happened on 9/11), but the proof of their involvement would not be conclusive. 

      1. To paraphrase Sir Robin:

        Our friends on the “left” more often than not speak from their ideological belief and not from any true investigative experience.

        My guess is that they won’t take the time to hear opposing voices, but would rather slience them when it comes to debates such as social security, school choice, and the grand daddy of them all, global warming being caused by humans.

        As for this comment; “It has architects, engineers, first hand witnesses and many other very reliable sources that make it difficult to refute.”

        There are otherwise intelligent people who think that we did not land on the moon, that Oswald did not act alone, and that Ted Kennedy didn’t know Mary Jo Kopechne was still alive when he left her in the car to drown. 

            1. And one should not waste time trying to convince an ideologue that he or she is wrong.

              The premise you put forth about the need to debate various topics is part of the successful right wing takeover of our schools and other forums.  “In the interest of ‘fairness’, we need to teach kids creation science alongside of evolution.” No, the hell we do.  Evolution is science, the other is belief. 

              So, when us lefties don’t want to “debate” you, it’s more like why waste the time, it isn’t a debate.

              You say, “Our friends on the “left” more often than not speak from their ideological belief and not from any true investigative experience.”  My dear Fogbrain, it is EXACTLY investigative experience, as you phrase it, that drives science…….and far more lefties than righties. 

              It was only a decade ago that the mantra of the geophysical Luddites was that GW isn’t happening.  Now that polar bears are drowning, Micronesia is going under, and more hurricanes are Force 4 and 5 than ever before, only a few diehards say that.  Now, it’s “But it’s not man made.” 

              That, too, shall pass.

              PS, most of the “No problem here” proponents have been shown to have financial links to Big Oil and Big Coal.

              And no, I’m not going to “prove it.”


                The warming of the Arctic will have profound and unpredictable effects upon sea currents.  If these currents stop or change in a radical manner, we may see decirculation, and the end of weather as we have become accustomed to. 

                1. Ocean currents are not a result of some magical “conveyor belt” from the polar caps.  Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any currents in the southern hemisphere, as nearly all that ice is on a continent.

                  No, it’s Coriolis force.  And I don’t think the Earth will stop spinning anytime soon. 

                  Settlements at the extremes of survivability (Greenland, tops of the Alps, etc.) are being revealed.  This means that such land was accessible during human times, and was lost due to ice growth between then and now.  Humans clearly didn’t make that all icy and glaciery.  And they clearly didn’t make it habitable before that.  So why is it that they’re making it habitable now?  The simple answer is that they’re not.

                2. has studied what would happen if the Gulf Stream stops bringing warm air to Europe.  They understand the huge political and military turmoil if that were to happen.  Mostly, it would revolve on the lack of food grown and increased demands for energy, mostly petroleum.

                  1. Probably just like they studied the likely response to an alien invasion, but that doesn’t mean either is all that likely.  Though I hear the guy who wrote that book/movie with Al is an expert on both.

  4. The RMN (P. 25)has a quote from each of our elected officials about the Petraus report.  Even Allard and MM noted that things aren’t going all that well. 

    However Lamborn thought it just marvelous. “I was reassured not only that the surge is working, but that it will succeed as long as we give our troops a realistic opportunity to meet their goals.”

    “Realistic opportunity?” Like twenty years and two trillion dollars?

  5. Has anyone seen any calculations of how much petroleum we’ve burned fighting these open ended ME wars?  Does Iraq have enough reserves to replace what we’ve put into the stratosphere?  How many tons of greenhouse gases have been made flying our troops and material back and forth?  And how much more are we paying for crude due to this additional demand?

    1.   Remember back in those heady days of May ’03 (i.e., the “Mission Accomplished” banner) when there was talk of us sending an invoice to the Iraqi people for our costs incurred in liberating them?
        We didn’t because we thought that they’d have trouble getting back on their feet if saddled with some much debt.

  6. 9/11: How Bush Has Betrayed Us
    Submitted by Rick Perlstein on September 10, 2007 – 7:04pm.
    Like everyone else, I’ll never forget Tuesday, September 11, 2001. I was living in Brooklyn then, and breathed air polluted by the ash from incinerated flesh. But I’ll also never forget Friday, September 14. That was the day my Brooklyn neighborhood held its candlelight vigil. Our bodies spanned Seventh Avenue from sidewalk to sidewalk, for over a dozen blocks. I’ll never forget the next morning either, because that’s what really made me cry. I nearly broke my neck, you see, from all the leftover candle wax coating the sidewalk. So many people feeling the same thing together: remember the solidarity?


  7. After the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration had two approaches available to it: (a) to approach the events interms of international justice or (b) to approach them in terms of moralistic violence. The GOP chose (b) and opted to appeal to Americans’ baser instincts. Hence, the pseudo-justification of the Iraq war in terms of a so-called “global war on terror,” and six years of accusations of treason against anybody who dared question the “facts” supporting the Bush administratioln’s rush to war (e.g., WMD, Iraq-al Qaeda links, Iraqi collusion with the 9/11 attacks). The result was that the US went into and remains in Iraq blinded by sap-apple emotionalism and redneck vengefulness. The rush to war was ugly, childish, and, of course, wrapped in the flag.

    The result is the Iraq quagmire. The GOP continues to thump the tub for an ongoing war with no definite objectives, and centrist Democrats like Colorado’s Salazar brothers continue to broker their party’s capitulation to the failed GOP policy. (Notice the concurrent insanity here: fearing being labled as “weak” by their political opponents Ken Salazar and his ilk kiss up to the Republicans and kick down at their own grassroots who are demanding a change.)

    Things could have been different. The response to the 9/11 attacks could have been framed in terms of enforcing international peace and order. The Bush administration could have pursued bin Laden and his henchlings as murderers and avoided the detour into Iraq. Almost every nation in the world would have enthusiastically cooperated with this objective, and by this time the 9/11 perps would be imprisoned or executed. Think of it for a minute. No war. No deep polarization. No mounting debt.

    But at this time of the day it’s unlikely that there will be any face-saving exit from Iraq. Despite what the Bush Administration, the GOP, and their pet generals say, it’s unlikely that the situation in Iraq will be better six months, a year, or five years from now–and deep down everybody knows it. Because everybody knows this open secret, it’s impossible to justify the GI deaths–now more than the number lost in the 9/11 attacks–for a failed and phoney cause.

    And so the kabuki theater continues. The GOP continues to chant its alternative reality talking points, and Democratic centrists like the Salazar brothers continue playing political games with other people’s lives. Of course, the whole charade is cloaked in the language of “seriousness” and “bipartisanship in foreign policy,” but such rhetorical nosegays fail to cover the stink of folly and moral failure.

    And there you have the real tragey of 9/11.

    1. Could be a rightie in your use of rhetorical flair.

      You should write speeches for Pelosi.

      In five short paragraphs you connect 9/11, Iraq, the failure the Bush administration and tie it all up with the ‘political game’ of bipartisanship.

      The problem with the far lefties is you are all in group think right now.  Bush bad. Iraq bad. War bad. Troops home now. You mimic Bush more than you would admit with your words.

      The Dems haven’t been able to get the troops out, haven’t been able to withdraw funding, haven’t been able to come up with a coherent plan to end the war, and haven’t been able to do much of anything except pander to their petulant base. 

      Personally, I’m sick of watching my party’s leaders make asses of themselves and you should be too. But gawd forbid our Senators or Representatives actually begin to work together to solve a problem. 

      On today’s anniversary it is disappointing to see how low the Democrats have fallen. 

      1. On today’s anniversary it is disappointing to see how low the Democrats have fallen.

        So now we’ve had 6 years of GOP abusiveness in the wake of 9/11. The war belongs to the GOP. The right wing lied and cheerlead us into it. When the rest of us questioned your facts, you attacked our patriotism. Now you have us in a quagmire with no end in sight. GOP demagoguery, dissembling, and group think got us into this mess. So don’t even start with the lectures about how you’re wise and good and know better. How dare you. Shame on you.

        1. You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the Dem party these days.

          Let’s see:

          – the war doesn’t belong to the GOP, it belongs to us and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we’ll put aside the politics and craft a solution

          – you automatically think I’m a Republican without engaging me in any kind of give and take. Very Democrat of you.

          – group think did get us into this mess and for six years it has continued in BOTH parties. We’ve seen nothing but partisanship, I say there’s another way.

          – finally, lest you forget, us Dems, yes I am a Dem, are just as responsible for this war as the GOP. When lefties come off saying the Administration is to blame, I want to puke. The Dems gave him the authority to do what he did and we share that responsibility.

          I’m not lecturing you or telling you how wise I am, just more assumptions on your part. Shame on all of us for getting to where we are now and allowing partisan politics to continue to rule the day!

          1. Making coherent points in response to the MoveOn message of the week.  What do you expect the libruls to do!  🙂

            I’ve gotta agree w/ you for the most part.  Dems need to find a solution we can get through the Senate.  That means, god forbid, working with repubs.  The fact that the repubs led us into this war really doesnt matter at this point.  There’s stuff to be done and we’re the ones in power to do it.  Time to buck up and get the job done…not whine about how miserable repubs have made us and the country the last few years.

            1. agree with you both.  You should read David Sirota’s diary about “the innocent bystander theory” if you haven’t already.  Dems cannot sit there forever and just criticize -something has to be done.  There are already enough votes to end the war by voting down funding bills, there is just no political will to do it.

              1. There are already enough votes to end the war by voting down funding bills, there is just no political will to do it.

                And the requisite political will is exactly what the Salazars are undermining. God damn them.

                1. There are 55 or so votes to “end the war” in the Senate.  Maybe you didnt get the memo, but that isnt enough.

                  Damn those filibustering repubs using the rules to their advantage…  How dare they exercise their rights. 

                  Give me a break.

                  1. Thanks to Dabee for pointing out Senate procedure 101:  it takes 60 votes, not 51 to get anything done. Dems have been at 48 for the last several months. Sen Johnson has been out due to his brain hemorrhage, and Sens Sanders and Lieberman, although they caucus with the Dems, are both independents.  And Lieberman is about as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to Iraq.

                    Senate rules demand 60 votes to invoke cloture, or vote to vote.  The House only needs a simple majority.  Speaker Pelosi got a drawdown resolution through the House 218 to 217, but it died in the Senate because of the cloture rule.

                    So what needs to happen is that sufficient Republicans to vote their conscience and get us to 60.  Until that happens, we’re stuck.

          2. The Dems gave him permission to go to war with specific circumstances.  He, in effect, said “Fuck y’all, I’m attacking now cuz I want to.”

            While the Dems are certainly guilty of being legislative cowards, this is a Republican war.  They supported Bush, they have kept giving him what he wants, and they now hamper efforts to get out.

            1. I like how this is a populist democracy when the “will of the people” is something you agree with.  But when it’s not – in the way of Congress and the duly (and dually) elected President doing their thing – then it’s all “The Other Guy’s Fault ™”

              What was that I read about group think above?

          3. Republicans, the purported party of responsibility, frogmarched the country into war in Iraq on on the basis of what they knew were lies. But that didn’t matter at the time (2003). What mattered was silencing dissent, questioning other citizens’ patriotism, and generally digging moderate Democratic capitulation. Well, oh Grand Old Party of Responsibility, you got what you wanted. Every day more young Americans dies on account of your blindness, expediency, and moralistic thuggery. Just a few questions. Where were you in the run up to the war? Were you thinking ahead to what the war might bring, or were you stupidly waving the flag? Time to suck up some of that Responsibility you keep telling other people about, eh?

              1. …how about canning the sarcasm and and admitting that GOP thuggery got us into this lousy war? We all know it anyway. Just say the words…the…GOP…really…wanted…to…go…into…Iraq…in in…2003…and…the…facts…just…didn’t…matter. See, not so hard is it? A relief, really. Confession is good for the soul.

            1. “silencing dissent, questioning other citizens’ patriotism, and generally digging moderate Democratic capitulation”

              You’re not getting away with making this assertion part of the standard narrative on 2003.  Prove it.

                    1. We were discussing how the GOP lied the US into Iraq, created a climate of intimidation, and now wants to cast the whole fiasco as a “bipartisan” misadventure. You Rethugs have such short attention spans. No wonder you screwed up the response to 9/11.

              1. a veteran who left three limbs on a helicopter pad in Vietnam had ads run against him featuring Osama and calling him unpatriotic because he disagreed with Bush on organizational rules for the Dept of Homeland Security.

  8. After OBL “Wanted Dead or Alive” to “I don’t think much about him anymore” we now have this:

    “The White House vowed Tuesday the United States would capture elusive Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as it marked the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

    US President George W. Bush has pledged “he’d like to find him. He said all along: we are going to find him,” spokesman Tony Snow said, just hours after a new video of bin Laden praising one of the 9/11 hijackers was released.”

    How the hell can any sane, thinking person support this president?  Flip-flop-flip-flop….ad infinitum, nauseum.

  9. It started with mass murder. The GOP exploited it with cheap emotion, shallow moralism, and phony patriotism. Then it became a false pretext for a war. The war became an occupation, and the occupation became a quagmire. Now the GOP disavows its responsibility and sings the praises of bipartisanship. Suddenly they address me using the words “we” and “our,” but back in 2003 they used the words “you liberals” but meaning “you traitors.” I remember. We all do.

  10. “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
    – G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

    and just 6 months later:

    “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
    – G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

    Do you think there is a reason for the flip-flop?  Is bin Laden Bush’s bestest buddy?  Would we have a President Bush if we did not have an Osama bin Laden?

    1. In the seven hours this has been posted, either no one read it or no one can refute facts of the incompetency, complicity and criminality of this administration.

      1. Pretty good article, except that pre-Patriot Act, the FBI and CIA weren’t allowed to share information that might have stopped this.

        I also think that if we’d learned about the attack ahead of time and arrested the team that we’d be writing them a big check right now for infringing on their rights for daring to pull them off airliners with legal box cutters in their possession.

        It’s a different world now, though.

        1. The CIA was empowered to let the FBI know of the movements of known terrorists at the time.  The FBI and CIA had (probably still have) a poor relationship though, and communications were Not Good.

          If we’d learned of the attack ahead of time, there would have either been enough evidence to arrest them as they boarded the planes or enough Air Marshals concentrated into those planes to suppress the action as it happened.  A few surprise re-enforced doors would have been entertaining, too.

          Assuming Bush actually cared enough to do his job, that is.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

44 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!