“At first they ignore you. Next they ridicule you. Next they fight you. Next they accept you.”

There is just too many unanswered questions. I’m not totally convinced by some of the weirder theories, but I am convinced of this – the so-called “official version” of 9/11 is bull. The most compelling DVD is indeed “9/11 Press For Truth”. It’s hard to argue against those that actually had loved ones die in the attacks, that if it wasn’t for them there would have been any investigation at all (as phony as it was – the Kean Report is to the Warren Commission, half truths and ignored evidence) If you are a doubter I urge you to watch “Press For Truth”

There needs to be an independent criminal investigation.

To those that say 9/11 conversation should be banded, I have to ask, how does the denouncement of the free expression of thoughts fit into the First Amendment? Anyone should be free to express anything they wish and it’s up to each person to decide the merits. But to just ban a subject? I find that to be totally against the principles of progressive thought.

Notta Flatlander @ 253

kirk murphy @ 251

Err – uh – I think I was the target on that one …

Had to climb up to the top nut yes, mui called you on plagiarizing so my shot would have been (nominally) at you. Of course, the target was in fact Plagiarisen Biden, not you at all.

Middle age white guys look silly with corn rows.

And so, mr. scienterrifficist (sorry, couldn’t resist), you have empirical data to support that claim? More to the point, are you claiming that applies to all MAWGs? If not, then we have to assume your data is as much anecdotal as empirical. As in….you didn’t, did you?

Now you know why I didn’t go to YKos…

Oh geez, sorry you two. Frayed nerves or something.

Ok, yuck it up you furballs, but us “tin foil hatter,s” sites are reporting Libby has been found guilty of 3 counts of Perjury. The judge knows this, yet sent them home before the verdict was announced. That it is leading to a reopening of the Marc Rich case, the one you all know Libby was an attorney for, that he successfully lobbied “Big Dog” for a presidential pardon?

That a Newsweek Reporter (and I use that term loosely) has perhaps spoken with one of the unsequestered Jurors. Jury Tampering allegations next up?

That Hillary Clinton funded the “report” of Gore’s electric bill, through one of Limbaugh’s scumbag associates. Paid him $35,000 to propagandize this non-issue. Scared her msm driven and financed campaign is foundering? She IS one of the “allowable” choices for us peasants, no?

Prove me wrong.

Oh, and go get’em, Jane.

Plus, since FDL is moderated, then the moderators should moderate.

M. Le Beouf is nothing but a thread hijacking troll, and he’s got many to play along, so he’s “winning.” Stop playing and he loses.

Look I’m as interested in the Libby case as the next guy. But this is also an important issue.

I’m sorry you feel you have to brand me as a troll because you are uncomfortable with the information I am presenting here.

erm why are you presenting it here?

mayan @ 22

List or listen to every recorded piece of American music pertaining to breaking the law:
1. I fought the law and the law won;
2. That’s the sound of the men working on the chain-gang;
3. Lawyer Clark (Sleepy John Estes)
4. Vioila Lee Blues (Cannon Jug Stompers)

etc. etc…Ya know, the power of positive thinking

Add The Authority Song by John Mellencamp

Pretty Boy Floyd, Frankie and Johnny and
Pretty Polly – all traditional

and, for pure menace:
Powderfinger – Neil Young
Time to Get a Gun – Fred Eaglesmith

I enjoy the musical breaks around the doglake campfire. Thanks again for the link to K.D. Lang’s cover of The Valley. It’s still perched atop my recent youtube playlist. Here’s a link to a cover of Leonard Cohen’s Anthem that I submit as a tribute to Betty Trophey who has vigiled against this war for 212 consecutive Sundays in Little Compton, Rhode Island; and to Joyce Katzberg who has witnessed on Saturdays in Providence, RI for some suchlike number of Saturdays. Anthem is a favorite of Betty’s.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BffduenkO4E

“I can run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud . . .”

l.c.

David Friend is an Editor at Vanity Fair — formerly Photo Editor at Life — and last year he published “Watching the World Change: The Stories behind the Images of 9/11″ — published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2006. What Friend did was collect images mostly from professional photographers, organize the stories behind the taking of the pictures, and then write the book. Book is keyed to the net as many of the interesting photos are not printed in the book — better viewed on a monitor.

Friend estimates at least two million pictures were taken on 9/11 — as were thousands of hours of video. Friend had a hand in archiving a large chunk of this, collecting the details behind the taking of particular pictures, the angle, the point of view. Remember none of the photographers in the first hours knew what they were photographing, and many photographers had never done “War Front” photography. Among the photographers would be the 500 accredited Fashion Week Professionals — it was Fashion Week in NYC — and a large number of international videographers in town for MTV’s awards the night before. Apparently all grabbed camera and went off to shoot —

The book won’t solve anyone’s argument, but it does address the really more profound question of how we see, organize what we see, interpret the image, and relate it to other images.

I suspect one reason Friend’s book did not get lots of play is that he deals with the jumpers, as several photographers apparently were positioned to see them, and exclusively photographed them. He tells a fascinating story about this and the efforts after the fact to erase so much about that from archive film and video.

Monsieur Le Prof @
98

Something to ponder while we wait:

The BBC has apparently lost all of its archived footage from Sept 11, 2001.

Two days ago, 9-11 researchers uncovered archive footage that showed the BBC had announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:00 PM EST. The reporter and graphics claimed the building had collapsed.

Only problem, it was still on the Manhattan skyline. The building didn’t actually fall until 5:20 PM EST.

The government claimed it fell due to fires (it was not hit by an airplane). It fell at virtually free-fall speed, about 7 seconds.

How did the BBC know the building would accidentally collapse 20 minutes before it did, unless there was some sort of source that knew it would fall around that time?

This is a smoking gun that 9-11 needs to be reinvestigated and that the conspiracy is much wider than the mainstream media indicated, namely the 19 hijackers.

Video can be viewed here

The BBC has tried to have this pulled from Google and YouTube during the last two days. Why? Why have they claimed to no longer have their original archives?

This is a very big story.

Pretty scary if true.

My son in law’s brother died at the WTC
He worked for Cantor Fitzgerald
He was only 23
There Definitely is a cover-up
My coonhound could show you where this trail
is pointing