Doesn’t sound statistically significant—you can easily get eight “heads” out of twelve by flippin a coin.. Hope someone points out how weak that is.

Spiritcatcher @ 86

Oh, the Pentagon definitely got hit. They didn’t close off that wing for renovation beforehand for nothing …

I have a friend (well of a close relative) who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 (an intern there)-whatever the cause of the blast.

Sorry to hear that. No, i don’t doubt that the Pentagon and the Towers got hit or that Al Quaeda was behind the hijackings. I only doubt that the 4th plane got disassembled in mid-air by its passengers or that WTC7’s steel beams melted out of sympathy …

jayt @ 74

Did the planes cause the collapse ?

From the very first time I saw film on the morning of 9-11-01, I’ve said – no fucking way.

Also interesting is the this morning’s film from the Pentagon, where a plane supposedly hit; there’s a grand total of *one* firetruck shooting water in the direction of what little fire there is/was.

Oh, the Pentagon definitely got hit. They didn’t close off that wing for renovation beforehand for nothing …

I have a friend (well of a close relative) who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 (an intern there)-whatever the cause of the blast.

Good Morning Christy and pups.

Thank you mightily for these posts Christy.

Hugh. You mention fake data as the basis for the charts Petr. is using. Can you elaborate?

I thot I heard more detail about that yesterday, but lost track of the references.

No hurry. Just when things quiet down and you have a moment.

Thanking you in advance. ;->

Christy posted this site yesterday – running track of falsehoods in this report -
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/

ThinkProgress fact-checks BetrayUs Petraeus:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]

Army Chief of Staff George Casey: “Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don’t go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces.” [8/20/07]

Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]

Army Secretary Peter Geren:“[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]

Packer’s New Yorker article states:

Young officers are leaving the Army at alarming rates, and, if the deployments of troops who have already served two or three tours are extended from fifteen to eighteen months, the Pentagon fears that the ensuing attrition might wreck the Army for a generation. Activating the National Guard or the reserves for longer periods could cause the bottom to fall out of public support for the war. Beyond these measures, there are simply no more troops available.

Is there anyone here who believes that Bush wouldn’t “wreck the Army for a generation” or “cause the bottom to fall out of public support for the war” (even more, apparently) rather than admit failure?

It’s important to remember that “have to bring troops home by April” is a “hard” limit only assuming sane military policies, which is not a safe assumption here. Maybe Bush’s increasing lame-duckitude will embolden the generals sufficiently, but I’m not willing to count on it.

new thread…