Puking on David Corn's Head

 

Hey David Corn -- you make a lot of noise whilst prancing and preening, this
time at Tompaine.com.

But here's a lesson in basic logic.

Disputing a dubious claim that "pods" were attached to the plane
that hit a WTC tower is not the same thing as disproving that some in the U.S.
government were complicit in the attacks. No, it's not the same thing at all.

I bet this sort of thing is not lost on the great majority either. It's not
lost on the half of New Yorkers who know that BushCo. operatives knew of the
plans in advance and "consciously failed to act." (Zogby, 8-04) Nor
is it lost on the two thirds of New York State residents who want these
investigations reopened -- for real this time.

It sure wasn't lost on me when George W. appointed Henry Kissinger, war criminal
extraodinaire, to lead the cover up -- oops -- I mean "investigation."

No, David Corn, you reprehensible shill. You know better. Yet, you still maintain
the farce. There has to be a special circle in hell for the enablers of atrocity,
for those in the media who through shameless public cocksucking allow the lies
to stand.

Corn makes much jest that he has been called a "CIA operative," which
may certainly be the case. He alludes to a non-existent "CIA check"
as if that were the only kind of compensation we should consider. Mr. Corn evidently
hasn't heard of "Project
Mockingbird," where CIA actively recruited U.S. journalists for disinformation
purposes.

David, access is also a form of compensation. Without it, you'd have nothing
to write about in The Nation Magazine, which receives funding from questionable
sources such as the CIA's
Ford Foundation.

Back to basic logic:

Corn obscures. He doesn't address the real and damning links, the known connections
from the alleged 9-11 "hijackers" that stretch back to the White House.
Corn fixates on easy targets and brings out the big guns for a smear job about
Mike Vreeland (who?), rather than actual 9-11 operatives such as "money
man" Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, former head of Pakistani intelligence
(the man who had $100,000 wired to Mohammad Atta before the attacks).

Where's the beef, Dave?

Corn's latest holy grail is a shoddy exercise in obfuscation published in Hearst's
Popular Mechanics. For some background, Adolf
Hitler and Benito Mussolini were once paid journalists for William Randolph
Hearst's publications. This crappy article is put down adequately in this rebuttal:
Popular
Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man, by Jim Hoffman.

The Popular Mechanics (PM) piece does what Corn (and the Republican right)
are good at: focus on tangential details, and ignore the real substance of the
critic's charges. There are so many theories out there, some no-doubt put there
by CIA as disinformation to discredit critics, that of course some of them can
be disproven. What PM hopes to accomplish with this piece is to cite 16 "theories"
and then to pretend that what they have addressed is the entire scope of 9-11
skepticism. This is clearly not the case.

Bombs in buildings?

Had you ever seen the World Trade Center towers with your own eyes? I certainly
hope you had. They were magnificent.

They were 110 stories tall.

And they fell exactly into their footpriints. Both of them. Exactly.

Firefighters
on the scene speak of hearing and seeing a succession of demolition charges
going off in rapid succession. This is documented on the web and on the In Plane
Site video. Other eyewitnesses
reported likewise.

The owner of World Trade Center tower #7 admitted on television that he ordered
the building brought down, in the industry jargon: "They made that decision
to pull, and we watched the collapse." Audio from PBS can be heard here.
Well, guess what. It takes more than one day's preparation to set up a skyscraper
for a perfectly controlled demolition. As WTC-7 was "pulled" on the
afternoon of 9-11, there wasn't enough time to arrange such a wiring after 8:46am
that morning.

David Corn doesn't concern himself with these damning reveleations. Of course
not. His role is not to find the truth, but to fight the fires with successive
fall back positions. That is what he does. By pointing to Popular Mechanics
and claiming that all issues are settled, David Corn is a part of Frank Wisner's
"Mighty Wurlitzer" simply restating the falsehoods that pass
unquestioned in big $ media.

David Corn says:

"One conspiracy theory holds that the World Trade Towers could not
have been brought down by two airliners and that explosives were set off within
the buildings after the planes hit. This sounds silly. If you were able to
covertly rig all those buildings with bombs, why would you not skip the airliners
and simply blow up the World Trade Center and find a way to pin that type
of attack on Al Qaeda?"

Well David, here's why:

1) The Pentagon needed to be struck (a military target) as well, so that
this was automatically an "act of war." You can't exactly claim
"lax security" at the most secure installation in the country. You
could hardly claim "lax security" at the WTC towers either, when
the president's brother ran the company that handled security there (Marvin
Bush).

2) The "suicide hijacking" Project Bojinka scenario was in the
works because it is a credible threat. It's genuinely plausible, and terrifying.
It also links directly to men of middle eastern descent, and to the places they want to wage wars to control energy reserves.

3) There was a chance that the WTC buildings could be knocked over flattening
half of lower Manhattan. This is the seat of financial power in the United
States. Wall Street had to be protected at all costs. This necessitated wiring
the buildings for a "controlled demolition." This controlled demolition
is exactly what occurred.

4) TV and "spectacular" disasters. The plane crashing footage has
been replayed tens, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of times in order
to entrance viewers and solidify the "new Pearl Harbor" motif, which
is its purpose.

5) It's completely implausible that "Al Qaeda" could have had opportunity
to wire supporting columns up and down the twin towers.

For these and other reasons, Corn's simplistic defense should be reexamined.

Jet fuel melts structural steel?

David Corn says:

"In any event, PM, citing several studies, notes that "the WTC's
structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage
inflicted by the planes."

Well, Dave, jet fuel doesn't melt structural
steel. If fuel melted steel, then the combustion engine would be an impossibility.

What happened to the South Tower, after only 1 hour of your alleged "intense
fire" was that the fire was in danger of being extinguished. That was the
moment they made the decision to bring it down with explosive charges. The fuel
had mostly exploded outside of the south tower in a spectacular fireball upon
impact. Because the plane hit at an angle, the bulk of the fuel was ejected
from the tower, in front of the world's press. The alleged "intense fire"
never reached a temperature anywhere near the melting point for steel. Radio
communications from firefighters (murdered) on the scene reported that the fires
were under control.

David, before 9-11-01, no steel frame skyscraper anywhere on earth had ever
collapsed as a result of fire. There were steel frame skeletons visible in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki after atomic bomb detonations. Yet on 9-11, even the building that
had not been struck at all (WTC-7) seemed to fall within its footprint in a
matter of ten seconds. And you're not investigating. Shame on you.

Here's David Corn, imperial shill, lying his ass off:

"Several conspiracists in books and videos have claimed that the
holes at the Pentagon—including the 75-foot entry hole--were too small
to have been created by a plane with a 125-foot wingspan."

If this doesn't get one a job at the Pentagon's "Office of Strategic Communications"
or at least with Faux News, well what does one have to do?

Hey David Corn: the "entry hole" wasn't 75 feet. Ooops. It was 12
to 16 feet for at least the amount of time it took Marine Corporal Jason Ingersoll
to photograph
it. The collapse of 75 feet of the facade came later. You are lying. You know
the allegations made, yet you blatantly misrepresent them.

I guess it's okay, because:

"I know someone who works in an office near the Pentagon with a woman
who saw Flight 77 heading toward the Pentagon. That's good enough for me."

Yeah, they spray paint the flight numbers on the sides of jets -- I forgot
-- in bright red, so that passersby can identify them when they're barrelling
in at 400 knotts. That's good enough for you, so I guess that's good enough
for me.

Only, why aren't they releasing the actual security camera video that shows
a plane impacting the Pentagon building? No frame shows any Boeing 757. And
why was the videotape at the gas station across the street confiscated by FBI
within 5 minutes of impact? Never to be seen again?

On second thought, that's not good enough for me. And neither are your unsubstantiated
opinions, Corn.

David Corn, testicles gleaming, concludes by telling us what the "real"
issues are:

"The CIA, the FBI, the FAA and NORAD botched their jobs. Fo example,
the CIA had a bead on two of the 9/11 hijackers-to-be and failed to notify
the FBI in a timely manner. And in its first nine months, the Bush White House,
despite the efforts of counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke, put off addressing
the threat posed by Al Qaeda."

Oh, the heroism of Richard Clarke, trying his best to educate the bumblers.
What a fucking god-awful crock of shit.

David, your spin doesn't match with the
facts. The U.S. government created Al Qaeda. The U.S. government also created
the Taliban through its proxy force, the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI). Al Qaeda was, and is, a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Successive U.S.
regimes going back to Carter have aided, abetted and trained the Al Qaeda network.
This aid has continued, as far as we can document, right up to August of 2001
in the Balkans.

What's more, the evidence has not even supported that the 9-11 attacks were
committed by "Al Qaeda" at all! The "mastermind" Mohammad
Atta, was not even a devout Muslim. He ate pork, drank alcohol, and was a narcotics
trafficker in Venice Florida, as documented in Daniel
Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland. So, if the very "ringleader"
is not motivated by radical Islamic beliefs and the motives attributed to "Al
Qaeda", then what's going on here?

What about the lawsuits by Sibel
Edmonds, by David
Schippers, by Ellen
Mariani? I guess they don't fit the paradigm either, huh? I guess having
FBI agents back off of terrorism cases under threat of prosecution doesn't mesh
with the "botched their jobs" spin. It looks a little too -- how do
you say -- intentional.

Another 52
"warnings" prior to 9-11 were just admitted to. Even as Condoleeza
Rice tells us with a straight face that Team BushCo. had "No idea."

Committed to history, in the report of the "National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States", (the "9-11 Commission Report"),
we find the names and photographs of the "19 hijackers." But, oops.
Big oops. Up to six of the men were still "alive and well", and had
nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks. This information came out in BBC
and UK
Telegraph, and a lot of other news sources, less than two weeks after the
attacks, more than 3 years ago.

The "Commission" published their names and photographs anyway, knowing
full well that they could not have hijacked any doomed airliners by reason that
they are still alive and breathing. Not a word of this reaches mainstream U.S.
corporate media audiences.

David Corn would have us believe the Bush administration's narrative, that
there was a "failure of intelligence," and "incompetence,"
and that unnamed, unspecified unidentifiables "botched their jobs."

Well, qui bono? Who benefitted from September 11th?

The pre-emptive empire certainly has. Coincidentally, so has David Corn.

##