My decision about Ron Wieck’s show

In the JRFF forum, ref (a.k.a. ref1 here) says, about the possibility of me appearing on Ron Wieck’s show:

I think she will be the toughest opponent as of yet. Dylan & Jason were easy, Fetzer… crazy. Diane has good argumentation, she is thorough and polite, it’s not going to be a walk in the park like dismissing some “no plane” or Loose Change claims. She’s by far the nicest truth movement representative I have ever had any interaction with. And she seems sincere. Although we very much disagree on almost every topic.

Thanks for all the compliments. But I’ve decided, as per my initial reaction, that I’m not yet ready to participate in a televised debate because I’m too new to the 9/11 Truth movement and too new at studying various topics pertaining to the events of 9/11. (I’ve been at it only since this past summer.) There are too many topics I haven’t yet researched in enough detail – even regarding just WTC 7 (to which the proposed debate would be limited) for me to participate adequately in a televised debate about it.

Loose Change Final Cut – section on WTC 7

I recently had an opportunity to view Loose Change Final Cut. I like it a lot better than the previous versions of Loose Change. But I wish it had been titled “Loose Change, Third Edition,” rather than “Final Cut.” It still contains quite a few errors that I hope will be corrected at some point in the future, plus a few other ways it could be improved. Although David Ray Griffin has done a lot for the 9/11 Truth movement, he is, alas, far from the world’s most thorough “fact checker,” especially on technical matters.

In this post I’ll review, in detail, the segment “Act II, Chapter IV, WTC 7.” The following is intended both as constructive criticism of LCFC itself and also to call attention to some of the issues that LCFC raises. It will also contain some notes to myself on matters I should research further.

New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative: Any objections, please voice them NOW!

There has been some controversy about the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative in various 9/11 Truth forums. See, for example, the discussion about it in this thread in the Truth Action forum and in 911blogger threads linked there. Some people are concerned about who the named commissioners are, for example.

The petition for the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative is now being re-written, and it will be starting over very soon. That being the case, NOW is the time to voice your objections, if any.

Reply to debate invitation from Ron/pomeroo on JREF

On my “blog stats” page, I found that two users had gotten to this blog via a link in page 4 of a thread in the JREF forum titled Hardfire News. On page 4, “Brainster” (who I think is Pat Curley) suggests to pomeroo (who I think is Ron Wieck) that he invite me onto a debate on a public-access cable TV show.

Ron/pomeroo said he would consider me, and wondered how he could get in touch with me. Answer: Post a comment here on my blog. Once you do, I’ll automatically have your email address (or at least the email address you used to register as a user here at WordPress).

Explicit stand-down order found! NORAD tape timestamps altered to bury it???

I really was NOT expecting to find this. An explicit stand down order would be too obvious, one would think. But, lo and behold, here it is – although, as we shall see, it not yet clear what relevance, if any, it may actually have as evidence, given the alleged timing and the alleged context. I found it in, of all places, the NORAD tapes, as quoted in the August 2006 Vanity Fair article 9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes by Michael Bronner.

If the timestamps on the tapes are to be believed, an explicit no-shoot order was given after Flight 93 had crashed, but while it was still believed that there might be other attacking planes in the air. As we shall see later, there is reason to question the timestamp. Perhaps the no-shoot order might actually have been given earlier, at a time when it could actually have caused harm? But for now I’ll assume that the timestamp is accurate.

“9/11: Press for Truth” – my response to an official-story defender’s comments

ref1 has asked me to comment on this review of “9/11: Press for Truth”:

George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: Their whereabouts on 9/11

During the attacks of 9/11/2001, pretty much the entire top of the U.S. military chain of command found more pressing things to do than to give their full attention to the attacks. This was a serious dereliction of duty, especially on the part of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, given the regulation (CJCSI 3610.01A, discussed in the comments on my post Why we need a new investigation of 9/11 – first draft of a leaflet) requiring the Secretary of Defense to approve any intervention involving use of lethal force.

To the “blame Israel” crowd: Put up or shut up

In a post in the Truth Action forum, John Doraemi has written the following, in reply to someone who blames people in the government of Israel for the 9/11 attacks:

Statements by Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Donna Marsh O’Connor

Thanks to YT for calling our attention, in the Truth Action forum, to the following statements by 9/11 family members.

The first is a letter by two of the famed “Jersey Girls,” Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg, who, in 2002, successfully pressured Congress to create the 9/11 Commission. According to YT, their letter, below, was published in the New York Times on December 26, 2007:

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

On Mark Roberts’s site, a page titled They oughta know better: critiques of the inept work, absurd claims, and deceitful practices of Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Steven E. Jones, Gordon Ross, Kevin Ryan, and others includes the following claim by Mark Roberts:

The “mysterious” iron spheres in WTC dust that are cited by Jones as possible evidence of thermite or thermate use, are in fact expected to form in a hot office fire.

In support of this claim, Roberts cites the very interesting paper WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank (PDF), prepared by the RJ Lee Group, available on an archived version of the website of the New York Environmental Law and Justice Project. But, as we shall see, this report does not actually support Roberts’s claim at all.

(P.S.: After I notified Roberts about this post, he changed the wording on his website. Below, I’ll leave my reply to the original wording intact, and then I’ll reply to the revised version in a P.S.)