Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
One Man's Moonbat...
I did a quick google blog search to see who linked the Infowars arrest video and this search
page stood out:
To-may-to, to-mah-to. I don't think either side came off well in
this. One reason there was such a crowd around Goeas was that three
Rudy spinners--Goeas, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Celucci,
former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich--were bunched up together in
one spot. That's an odd way to enter the spin room if you're a
frontrunning campaign, and it wasn't how McCain's and Romney's
spinners did it. That added to the chaos and the sense that Goeas
was "trapped" and needed a security assist.
At the same time, Lepacek was acting like a guy who wanted to get arrested. Reporters getting quotes in the spin room simply don't hog the spinners or ask them to take 10 or 20 minutes to sit down and watch a video. You can argue that spin rooms are bullshit anyway, and that a little gonzo journalism that makes these candidates' staffers sweat is the only legitimate approach to a farce. But the staffers and the people who made them available are obviously going to bring the hammer down.
|6.6.07 @ 1:26PM|#
As I indicated before, if he was escorted out on orders of the organizers, its annoying, but if he was actually arrested, thats criminal. Moonbat or no moonbat, I doubt he broke any laws.
|6.6.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Refusing to leave private property when instructed to do so by the owner or his/her agent is criminal trespass. Again, what we saw on video probably doesn't reach that level, but what we didn't see might have.
|6.6.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci isn't backing former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney?
You'd think that would be bigger news, at least locally, but this
is the first I've heard of it.
Guy Montag|6.6.07 @ 1:37PM|#
The Guilliani staffer is some big shot in the NH State
Police/local police/Executive Brance someplace? Now THAT is a
story!
Bigger story, if the staffer/spinner is not even associated with NH
government at all, but he can give legal orders to their cops! That
9/11 'Truth' is yesterday's conspiracy, I want more details about
this NYC junta in NH!
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 1:57PM|#
"Refusing to leave private property when instructed to do so by
the owner or his/her agent is criminal trespass."
Giulani's press secretary represents the trustees of St. Anselm's
College?
Or he's somehow also the President of CNN?
I don't see the owner and/or their agent asking anyone to leave
there. I see one guest asking another guest to leave, and the
police obediently acting as the private hatchet men of one of the
guests.
|6.6.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"Refusing to leave private property when instructed to do so
by the owner or his/her agent is criminal trespass."
If this was a criminal trespass(though the reporter appears to have
been an invitee) then the acts of the private security forces were
"self help" and criminal as well.
|6.6.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Arresting a conspiracy nut only convinces other conspiracy nuts that OMG! IT'S ALL TRUE!
LarryA|6.6.07 @ 2:11PM|#
I just hope it doesn't get spun as "This is what happens when you let internet 'reporters' in."
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:19PM|#
I don't think Reporter Lepacek was referring to a 10 or 20
minute video. Weigel isn't explianing this story very well, so I
will fill you in:
1. The reporter asked the press sec'y who told Mayor Guiliani that
the "buildings" were going to collapse before they did.
2. The press secretary expressed disbelief at the question.
3. The reporter took this to mean that the press sec'y believes
that Mayor Guiliani did not know that the Twin Towers would
collapse until it happened until the collapse happened. I think
most of us agree with the press sec'y about this.
4. At this point, the reporter wanted to show the press sec'y a
video to show that Mayor Guiliani did know the Twin Towers were
going to collapse before it happened.
5. This morning I was not sure what video the reporter was
referring to. Now I am pretty sure I do. It is the video where
Mayor Guiliani said this:
"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75
Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner,
the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we
were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade
Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could
actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the
building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out,
walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
6. Given that quote from Guiliani, the reporter's question to his
press sec'y seems like a fair question, and not "gonzo journalism."
Frankly, I myself would like to know who told Mayor Guiliani that
the first Twin Tower would collapse before it happened. The whole
thing raises valid questions about Mayor Guiliani's judgement in a
disaster, and (more importantly) his level of honesty and candor
with the voting public after the fact.
7. Mr. Weigel should be learning from the reporter here, rather
than criticizing him.
|6.6.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I don't think either side came off well in this.
No? Vindicating wako conspiracy theories by arresting the only guy
not afraid to ask the question seems ill advised. What are you
trying to hide Rudy? Game, set, match to the Moonbats.
I would be as if we responded to an attack by religious zealots
claiming we had imperial designs on Mid-East holy lands rich in
oil, by invading such a country run by a secular despot.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:34PM|#
What are you trying to hide Rudy?
He is trying to hide the fact that he was informed that the Towers
would come down before they did.
He is also trying to hide how long long the time period was between
when he was informed that the Towers would come down and when they
did.
He is also trying to hide who else knew the Towers would come down
before they did and how long they knew it for.
He is also trying to hide what emergency management related
communications he made and failed to make in between the time he
was informed the Towers would come down and when they did come
down.
Question for you, Warren: why is it moonbatish to want these
answers from his representative?
|6.6.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Aren't the Infowars guys the ones who think oil can magically regenerate in dry, underwater wells?
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 2:35PM|#
What's a little odd to me is that this was a CNN event, and
there is no coverage of or description of this arrest at
CNN.com.
We get coverage about what Cindy Sheehan's T-shirt says at the
State of the Union, but a credentialed journalist is dragged out of
a CNN event and there's no coverage?
No matter who is right, there should be at least coverage. If the
reporter is wrong, there should at least be a "Crazy Man Arrested
At Debate" story.
Why is CNN choosing to act as if no event occurred, at their own
soiree?
|6.6.07 @ 2:35PM|#
P.S. Not to defend Rudy by any stretch, but it's only fair to know where it's all coming from.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Aren't the Infowars guys the ones who think oil can
magically regenerate in dry, underwater wells?
are we supposed to judge this reporter by whom he works for or what
his question was?
|6.6.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Fluffy,
I vaguely remember something from my journalism training that it's
unethical to report on yourself.
Of course, that's only theoretical, and by "that" I mean
"journalist ethics."
|6.6.07 @ 2:43PM|#
It was pretty obvious the towers were going to collapse. Two planes are rammed into them, destroying large parts of several floors, causing a raging inferno. It was only a matter of time before they collapsed. I remember watching this live on television with coworkers, when one remarked, "it's going to collapse."
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Dave W =
He is trying to hide He is trying to hide He is trying to hide
He is trying to hide He is trying to hide He is trying to hide
etc.
Dave, I call double dog bullshit on you. You are basically saying
something rudy did or didnt do had consequences on 9/11. The
fucking buildings were hit by planes. People tried to save
survivors. The buildings came down. No one there wanted to do
anything but save lives. Suggesting that somehow someone was
incompetent, or deceptive, or something, and that somehow if they'd
acted 'Different', they would have saved more lives. Thats bullshit
monday morning quarterbacking. The guy was on the scene trying to
manage the clusterfuck of our generation. I dont think he was
rambo, but if we had to pick someone to be there, he was the right
guy, and he acted in good faith. All of this "truth" BS IGNORES the
truth. The truth that it was what it appeared to be. A disaster.
And no one persons decisions could have changed things much.
It so happens I was there at the time. Not that that gives me any
special credibility. But if you were there, you wouldnt be so trite
in your use of the event to criticise the guy for some assumed
decisions/non-decisions. It happened pretty #@($*@# fast if you
recall, and no, no one expected 100% for the buildings to come
down. The towers were extremely unique buildings, supported by
their skin, not the skeleton, like traditional "steel frame"
buildings. No one had ever modeled the effect of blowing open the
sides of the skin and injecting 'superheated' jetfuel fires into
the core. Pretending as though "people knew!!" is flat out false,
and cheaply opportunistic. Yes, there was the fear, but the speed
of deploying and trying to recall the emergency services was not
fast enough to save all the firefighters. A tragedy? yes.
Incompetence? Not really. Deception? no.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:52PM|#
It was pretty obvious the towers were going to
collapse.
1. Guiliani said that somebody told him. He did not say that he
came to this conclusion just by knowing about the circumstances of
the attack.
2. Of course, even if you are correct about this, Brandybuck, if
the press secretary admits this, then Guiliani will have to deal
with the fact that he was not trying to pull rescue workers out of
the buildings and away from them on the ground. Valid questions
would be raised about his judgement under fire. Which is why the
reporter's line of questioning is valid and important and not
moonbatish.
|6.6.07 @ 2:52PM|#
So the 9-11 folks would all be happy had Rudy, in the heat of
the moment said: 'I've been advised that the towers might, in
theory, come down, and as a safety precaution we are going to
leave...' -- I doubt it, thats grasping at straws, no offense
intended toward staws.
Rudy's still 'America's Jerk'
|6.6.07 @ 2:56PM|#
"It was pretty obvious the towers were going to collapse. Two
planes are rammed into them, destroying large parts of several
floors, causing a raging inferno. It was only a matter of time
before they collapsed. I remember watching this live on television
with coworkers, when one remarked, "it's going to collapse.""
It wasn't obvious to the firefighters who went into the building to
fight a fire 80 or so floors up, where getting back out would
involve a very long hike down. You have to be a bit crazy to go
into burning buildings, but that's not the same as being suicidal
or stupid.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 2:58PM|#
'I've been advised that the towers might, in theory, come
down, and as a safety precaution we are going to
leave...'
What he said was that he was advised that the Towers were going to
come down. How seriously Rudy should have been taking that warning
probably depends upon who told him and how certain that person
seemed to be.
Which means we need to know who that person was .
Which is exactly what the reporter was trying to find out before he
got taken to jail for asking too loud.
|6.6.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Dave W,
I agree that it's the question that really matters, but I see how
some knee-jerk blogger could see these guys as kooks.
I'm withholding judgment because, frankly, I don't really care.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Which means we need to know who that person was .
And what, Dave, would that accomplish? Proof that "if only Alex
Jones were on the scene at the time, all the lives would have been
saved!'
Seriously. What have you established, and what difference would it
have made. Would it have warranted recalling all the firefighters
and leaving everyone else to die? Is that the kind of leadership
you want in an emergency? When in doubt, act as though the worst
has already happened? Bravo.
Remind me not to rush into your burning house and save your
children when the time comes.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Taktix, when there was a shooting at the CNN center in Atlanta,
CNN covered it.
If there's an arrest in the middle of a CNN event, they should
cover it.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 3:05PM|#
So Gilmore, basically what you're saying is that because you
don't trust people to draw the right conclusions about Giuliani's
performance, he's allowed to conceal details of that performance in
order to prevent their discussion?
It doesn't matter if it's Monday morning quarterbacking and it
doesn't matter if it's unfair. If we aren't going to agree that
people have a right to hear the facts and evaluate them [even if
they use an unfair and unrealistic "everyone could have been saved"
standard as their guide] then why do we have a press at all?
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Yes, there was the fear, but the speed of deploying and
trying to recall the emergency services was not fast enough to save
all the firefighters. A tragedy? yes. Incompetence? Not really.
Deception? no.
It doesn't sound like they even tried to evacuate the firefighters
and cops, and therein lies the problem. If he did try to pull out
the cops as soon as his expert advised that the buildings were
coming down, then he should come clean and show the transcripts of
that happening. If he diddled around for 5 minutes before the
explosive collapse, then he should admit that and stress that it
was only 5 minutes. If he diddled around for 15 minutes, then,
frankly, he is not fit to be commander in chief of the US military.
To not give the voters the info about how it really went down, and
make them guess, as I am guessing here, is a form of
deception.
that is especially bad when this guy's principle claim to fame is
that he showed good leadership on 9/11.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:10PM|#
So Gilmore, basically what you're saying is that because you
don't trust people to draw the right conclusions about Giuliani's
performance, he's allowed to conceal details of that performance in
order to prevent their discussion?
No, "Basically" what i'm saying is that his performance really
didnt have fuck-all to do with how things actually played out, and
we should stop acting like this guy had his hands on the levers of
the machine called 9-11. His 'concealment' is all in the minds of
the Truthers. I dont think it's a topic that reveals anything about
him, or 9-11. People need to fucking let it go and actually have
questions about His Policies, not some bullshit revisionism that
has no bearing on the future of the country, or speak to his
personal capacity to serve the public
People have a right to the facts. But they're all out there, and
there's nothing to indicate that any decision made by the mayor
could have made a significant difference. Saying otherwise is
basically accusing him personally for the deaths of hundreds of
emergency workers. Thats fucking cheap.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 3:21PM|#
"People have a right to the facts. But they're all out there,
and there's nothing to indicate that any decision made by the mayor
could have made a significant difference."
If all the facts are out there, perhaps you could direct me to a
resource that would tell me when Giuliani was informed he should
leave the WTC, and if when he left he also withdrew emergency
personnel. These data points would be "facts", right?
"I dont think it's a topic that reveals anything about him, or
9-11. People need to fucking let it go and actually have questions
about His Policies, not some bullshit revisionism that has no
bearing on the future of the country, or speak to his personal
capacity to serve the public"
Exactly my point. You don't think it reveals anything relevant, so
you are fine if Giuliani doesn't answer questions that might lead
to it being discussed. How is this not exactly what I said?
|6.6.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Many people, after getting smacked down hard enough, will cry on the shoulder of any jackass that happens to be there. I am speaking metaphorically, of course.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"Saying otherwise is basically accusing him personally for the
deaths of hundreds of emergency workers."
By the way, this is not true. Even if it were revealed that
Giuliani was told to get out of the building, and rushed to
evacuate without pulling out the emergency workers, I for one would
not personally blame him for their deaths. I've been in one or two
emergencies in my life and it was enough to make me realize that
ten minutes or fifteen minutes simply isn't enough time to do
anything but proceed on instinct and preset procedures. What's done
is done.
But that's different from saying, "You shouldn't even attempt to
determine and document the record, because if you do mean people
with unrealistic expectations are going to blame the poor mayor,"
or some variant of that statement.
anon_443289|6.6.07 @ 3:29PM|#
If all the facts are out there, perhaps you could direct me
to a resource...
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/giuliani-and-foreknowledge-of-collapse.html
Sheesh.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 3:29PM|#
People have a right to the facts. But they're all out there,
and there's nothing to indicate that any decision made by the mayor
could have made a significant difference.
What do you mean by this? Do you know how certain Guiliani was
about the Towers coming down before it happened? Do you know how
much time he had? Do you have any idea how many lives would have
been saved if Guiliani gave the "everybody run away" order 3
minutes before the explosive collapse began?
In a nuclear war scenario, Guiliani might not have any more time to
make (even tougher) decisions. How long would it have taken
Guiliani to scramble fighters on 9/11 if he were in charge of the
US military?
Like it or not, good split second decision-making is a good quality
in a commander in chief. Guiliani wants us to think that it was
less than 5 minutes between the time that he was informed the
Towers would come down and the time they did. If it was, I am
pretty inclined to be forgiving. However, if it was longer, I am
not and I think I have a right to know which it was.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Dave - argumentum ad ignorantiam
I think my first comment in previous thread was, "This whole thing
is gay".
I was right, and should have listened to myself
"Like it or not, good split second decision-making is a good
quality in a commander in chief"
We should make them do flash cards. And if they get any wrong, we
blow up a building full of people. That's how we judge *our*
leaders.
Dave, arent you fucking Canadian or something? Come visit NYC.
Please. I'll show you the East River. Face first.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 3:35PM|#
hey dave, as a kind fellow posted, all the detail you want is on
pages 32/319 as per the link above
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
|6.6.07 @ 3:38PM|#
I just spent about 15 minutes following up on this quote, and
while yes, it does appear that he said it, he never said "imminent
collapse" and he later said that he was made aware that the builds
could collapse over 8-9 hours.
Regardless, the "Truthers" don't even believe that the buildings
collapsed because of the jets flying into them, they believe that
it was done with demolitions.
Could Giuliani have done things better given 20/20 hindsight?
Probably. Should he have to answer a bunch of fucking loons just
because they claim they are "with the press?" Hell no.
Sadly, these guys are on Ron Paul's side.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 3:45PM|#
I just spent about 15 minutes following up on this quote,
and while yes, it does appear that he said it, he never said
"imminent collapse" and he later said that he was made aware that
the builds could collapse over 8-9 hours.
If this is true, then the press sec'y should have: (i) answered the
reporters question; and (ii) explained that he interpreted
whomever-it-was's remarks to mean that the collapse would probably
occur over 8 or 9 hours.
As long as all this is true, it is a fine answer to give, and
indeed the answer that should have been given, rather than
complaining about the question or the tone of the question or
whatever.
Willingness and ability to answer questions is a good quality in a
commander -in-cheif's organization, too.
|6.6.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Guiliani...was...trying to pull...the buildings
OMG!!! It's true! It's RIGHT THERE in Dave W's post!
I helped Ron Paul\'s folks|6.6.07 @ 4:01PM|#
I linked to the video at the link.
I even found a way to tie it into... guess what!
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845918/posts
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 4:07PM|#
oh, surprise surprise.
lonewacko finds common cause in Truthers. birds of a
feather....
I like duck hunting.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 4:15PM|#
And what about the grassy knoll?
I watched that History Channel docu on Judyth Vary Baker on YouTube
last night. Her story is interesting, but I think it is a total
lie.
OLIVER STONE|6.6.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Oh yeah dave = show me your facts??? Do you have ALL the information?? What are you trying to hide?! The history channel is part of the whole media conspiracy. Can you prove to me...
|6.6.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Why they haven't blocked Dave W.'s ability to post here is utterly beyond me. I've never seen anyone able to use crazy as a weapon so effectively.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/giuliani-and-foreknowledge-of-collapse.html"
Anon, that page pretty much indicates that the question posed to
Giuliani's press secretary was actually valid.
The screw loose change guy acknowledges that there was warning that
the towers might imminently collapse.
That means that it seems valid to ask Giuliani why he would say
there was no warning. His statements don't only contradict each
other, they contradict the 9/11 Commission report.
For Captain 9/11 Rudy sure seems to have missed quite a few of the
findings of the commission.
|6.6.07 @ 5:57PM|#
We all new the buildings were going to collapse. What we did not
know was in what exact minute they would collapse. Look at the
Giuliani quote again. From the context it was clear that he was
given a warning of *imminent* collapse. It was so short of a notice
that he couldn't get his people out of there. Of course he didn't
have time to get the firemen out of the WTC! Duh!
The question asked last night was inferring that Giuliani know when
the towers were going to collapse significantly in advance. That is
a baseless assumption, and why Goeas expressed disbelief that
anyone could be so silly as to ask it.
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 5:59PM|#
If I was running for POTUS I would.
If I went around wearing a Captain 9/11 superhero costume under my
clothes, I would.
After all, this isn't the first time this has come up. Giuliani's
prickly exchange with Paul in the first debate only makes sense if
Giuliani hasn't read the Commission report.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 6:16PM|#
From the context it was clear that he was given a warning of
*imminent* collapse. It was so short of a notice that he couldn't
get his people out of there.
I agree that he worded his quote to convey that impression.
However, it would be better to know how much time it really was,
rather than guessing by the way he worded his response to jennings.
Guiliani should be willing to talk about that, or at least have his
representatives talk about that. really, these are questions the
9/11 Commission should have asked him under oath.
Of course he didn't have time to get the firemen out of the
WTC! Duh!
No, the "duh" strategy is to get an the radio and give a clear
order to "get all rescue workers away from both towers now.
collapse immininent." Once the appropriate people with radios at
the Towers reply by saying "roger that," only then do you worry
about the people with you at the temporary command center.
The question asked last night was inferring that Giuliani know when
the towers were going to collapse significantly in advance. That is
a baseless assumption, and why Goeas expressed disbelief that
anyone could be so silly as to ask it.
Dave W.|6.6.07 @ 6:18PM|#
The question asked last night was inferring that Giuliani
know when the towers were going to collapse significantly in
advance. That is a baseless assumption, and why Goeas expressed
disbelief that anyone could be so silly as to ask it.
Then Goeas should have said how many minutes notice Rudy had before
9.59 am. the voters can decide for themselves when they know this
number.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 7:10PM|#
No, the "duh" strategy is to get an the radio and give a
clear order to "get all rescue workers away from both towers now.
collapse immininent." Once the appropriate people with radios at
the Towers reply by saying "roger that," only then do you worry
about the people with you at the temporary command
center.
Dave, you havent read the 9/11 commission report. Please do
The police were on one shortwave system, the fire dept on another,
and EMT on a third = each unit would have been assigned separate
frequencies for operational control. in addition, almost no one
inside the building could communicate directly with the outside.
They could maybe read people at the base. The local communication
issues were a problem because they werent 'cross department' nor
system wide. They did send warnings but many were not going to get
it. You keep pretending there was a failure to act. They did
everything they could with what they had under the circumstances.
Pretending there was some "other" way of doing things is uninformed
and naive
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 8:02PM|#
Gilmore, you make a powerful case that there was no additional
action Giuliani could have taken on 9/11 that would have saved
additional lives.
So all Giuliani has to do if reporters ask questions of the sort
this guy asked is provide the explanation[s] you just
provided.
It doesn't really matter if you, or I, think it's a settled issue.
If reporters want to ask about the events of that morning at every
press conference he or his rep holds from now until the end of
time, that's really just too bad. If people get the wrong
impression or think things about poor little Rudy Giuliani that you
think aren't supported by the evidence, that's also really just too
bad. Those are the breaks - if you live by the sword of a nebulous
public impression of your true 9/11 role, you get to die by that
sword too. If he doesn't like it, he can not seek higher office.
What he should not be able to do is get people arrested because of
the line of questioning they pursue.
GILMORE|6.6.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Fluff Daddy =
I would have kicked the guy in the nuts for asking a question in
the form of "Why did Rudy Giuliani *lie* about..."
I dont think accusations of lying need to be treated
seriously.
I dont think they should have thrown him out, necessarily. Until he
really started being a double dick
|6.6.07 @ 9:26PM|#
What he should not be able to do is get people arrested
because of the line of questioning they pursue.
For the umpteenth time, it wasn't because of the line of
questioning. It was because he kept harassing the guy when he made
it clear he wasn't going to answer the question.
God knows I'm no Giuliani supporter, but freedom of the press
doesn't preempt an individual's right to choose who they want to
speak to.
|6.6.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Wow, you all seem to be missing the issue. I don't care who this
guy was, he shouldn't have been arrested. Like it or not, this was
a stupid thing for Rudy "I have three Muzzle awards for stomping of
freedom of speech" Giuliani's campaign to do. It reminds the
independent New Hampshire voters that despite his ability to talk a
good free market game, that he's really not a libertarian-minded
guy.
Worse, this will no doubt fuel truther mania.
|6.7.07 @ 1:01AM|#
1. Guiliani said that somebody told him. He did not say that
he came to this conclusion just by knowing about the circumstances
of the attack.
*sigh*
The day it happened, I was watching it on TV with a guy who
happened to be a civil engineer. His take, as we were watching, was
that they'd collapse within an hour, and he explained how and why
they'd collapse. Turned out he had it exactly right, and I doubt he
was part of any conspiracy.
You didn't need to be in on any conspiracy to realize they were
going to collapse, you just needed to have some knowledge of how
the buildings were engineered. I've yet to meet anyone
knowledgeable in that field that was any kind of surprised by the
outcome. Why would it be a surprise that Guiliani was advised of
that possibility?
Fluffy|6.7.07 @ 8:12AM|#
"For the umpteenth time, it wasn't because of the line of
questioning. It was because he kept harassing the guy when he made
it clear he wasn't going to answer the question."
For the umpteenth time, that just doesn't matter. It wasn't
Giuliani's event. It was CNN's event. Giuliani's press secretary
should not be able to decide when a credentialed reporter has asked
a question too many times. Fuck him if he doesn't like it. If
you're at my house and my kid brother is asking you the same
question over and over, YOU don't get to throw him out or get the
police to make him stop.
Right now, we only have Infowars' assertion that CNN didn't want
him removed. CNN is too cowardly to even cover the story or respond
to inquiries. But in the absence of information to the contrary, it
sure looks on the tape like the press secretary did this on his
own.
Dave W.|6.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Why would it be a surprise that Guiliani was advised of that
possibility?
Until yesterday, I didn't realize that Guiliani was advised. It
seemed like something that would have been probed in better detail
by the 9/11 Commission, so that people knew the true story.
Although I have been accused of not reading the 9/11 Commission
Report, I read the whole thing within a week of it being public. I
am not surprised that I forgot the part about some nameless
engineer telling some other nameless person that he thought the
thing would collapse two minutes before it happened. That is
inconsequential. OTOH, if the Mayor himself had gotten
word further in advance from a named expert, and then did (or
didn't) do something about it: (i) that should have been in the
Report; and (ii) would have stuck with me if it was. the way they
handled the issue seems like a whitewash now that the Truthers have
pulled the more relevant info out of the media archives. Why am I
relying on Truthers to get the story of 9/11? Why did I not get
this first from media commentators, and later from the 9/11
Commission Report? What national security issue is possibly being
hidden? I mean, I assume that there is some security issue
involved, because my default presumption is that I, as a voter, get
to know what my government is doing, unless there is a security
issue involved.
So, here is what I am not surprised about:
That Guiliani had advance notice of the Towers coming down prior to
9.59 am on 9/11.
here is what I am surprised about:
That I was never informed of this until 6 June 2007.
here is something else I am surprised about:
That Guiliani's press sec'y would not believe Guiliani knew in
advance, especially with that info being on the record and all. Is
he retarded? Or does he think that his audience (eg, Dave Weigel)
is retarded?
To recap: having advance notice: unsurprising; going to great
lengths to avoid admitting that: highly suspicious.
Civilized Worm|6.7.07 @ 12:09PM|#
He was arrested because he tried to re-enter the building after he had been thrown out.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245