Censorship

Julian Assange, WikiJournalist

Is the Wikileaks "editor-in-chief" a journalist or an activist? Or both?

|

Ambling up to the stage in a rumpled suit and clutching a laptop covered in bumper stickers, Julian Assange didn't appear particularly dangerous, like a man soon to be accused by the United States government of having "blood on his hands." He looked like Edgar Winter as imagined by Jim Henson; an awkward, lanky Australian with translucent skin and wisps of white hair falling over his face. Assange, as you surely know by now, is the founder and "editor-in-chief" of Wikileaks, the website responsible for the recent release of thousands of classified U.S. military documents detailing the war in Afghanistan.

In the company of those who survived the Khmer Rouge's killing fields, the torture chambers of Iran, Soviet psychiatric hospitals, and a man who avoided being hacked to death during the Rwandan genocide by hiding under a pile of corpses, Assange asked attendees of the 2010 Oslo Freedom Forum to remember the "statement that was put by the Nazis on front of concentration camps that 'work brings freedom,' an idea that Himmler had when he himself was in prison." Himmler did not invent the phrase Arbeit Macht Frei nor had he been imprisoned until the end of the war. It wasn't a promising start to a Nazi analogy. But Assange barrelled ahead, breathlessly explaining that the Guantanamo prison camp had a similar slogan ("Honor Bound to Defend Freedom"), one that, as a perversion of truth, is "worse than 'work brings freedom.'"

It was to this speech, and this wildly overblown comparison, that my mind wandered when watching Assange's seemingly endless media tour to promote Wikileaks Afghanistan document dump. The mild, sallow-faced whistleblower who routinely dismissed corporate media propagandists was now to be found on NBC News, telling Andrea Mitchell that the release of the Afghanistan documents was like the opening of the Stasi archives. Assange, it seemed, was something of a specialist in the obscene, historically illiterate analogy. But trawl through the fetid swamps of the blogosphere and you will find countless paeans to this paragon of New New Journalism, a man whose name is frequently preceded by the adjectives "brave" and "heroic."

It's up to specialists in military affairs and those with a deep understanding of Afghanistan to determine if these documents will ultimately add to our understanding of the war or, as has been frequently argued, if such raw intelligence data simply add detail—some extraneous, some misleading, some valuable—to what we already knew. While it seems implausible that in 91,000 pages of secret documents there is nothing unknown, it is more likely that there is simply nothing explosive here. As New York Times editor Bill Keller told CNN, his reporters dug out plenty of interesting material but the cache wasn't "full of scandals or revelations."

Keller, who received the documents from Assange before they were published online, bristles at the suggestion that Assange is a journalist and that Wikileaks was, as the organization has repeatedly claimed, a "media partner" of the Times. Wikileaks, says Keller, was simply a source, no different than the countless other sources the newspaper works with. And unlike the Times, "they are an advocacy organization. They have a point of view, and an ideology…"

If Assange wants to be a journalist—and he consistently identifies himself as one—he would be advised to cease referring to Wikileaks as an "activist organization" attempting to make a "political impact" and "achieve justice." As Washington Times national security correspondent Eli Lake told me, Assange is "an activist who understands computer code," not a journalist. (Incidentally, Lake describes himself as generally "pro-leak" and complains that Assange "will now be the poster boy for everyone who wants to create an official secrets act in the United States.")

After Keller's criticism, Assange moaned that The New York Times, a newspaper with an impressive and brave staff of war correspondents, wouldn't link to the Wikileaks website and denounced the paper's coverage of the leak as "unprofessional." The Times of London, whose staff reported that Wikileaks' document dump exposed the names of confidential Afghan informants, was "disingenuous" in their reporting, the paper guilty of "media manipulation." The rest of the media, many of whom are currently translating the leaked material into news stories, is doing "such a bad job" compared to Wikileaks. Those who criticize Wikileaks' methodology—and they span the ideological spectrum—"feel jealous, or they just don't understand the issue," Assange says.

When attacked for exposing the names of Afghan informants, and potentially exposing them to Taliban retribution, Assange lapsed into incoherence, citing the hitherto unknown "journalists shouldn't prognosticate" rule: "In journalism we should actually ignore people that say something might happen or could happen." It's a rule that would frequently require that we ignore Julian Assange.

But Taliban leaders recently declared that they were reviewing the documents, looking for traitors to punish (i.e. behead). Assange dismissed the claim, reasoning, "Anything in theory has the potential to harm anything else." But if this fails to convince, Assange blamed Wikileaks' exposure of Afghan informants on the United States military, claiming to be "appalled that the US military was so lackadaisical with its Afghan sources. Just appalled." When asked by Today Show host Meredith Vieira if the deaths of informants could be considered "collateral damage" in his attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan, Assange agreed.

But rather than accept this sinister moral calculus, why can't Assange and Wikileaks understand that one can leak documents that expose and enlighten while also protecting those in need of protection? Collating and interpreting 91,000 documents is a difficult task, precisely because this type of journalism is difficult. Assange, though, is learning the craft of journalism on the fly—charming when covering town meetings in Buffalo, dangerous when exposing Afghans to Taliban justice.

Suffering through every stop on his media tour, it becomes apparent that his transition from hacker to crusading journalist is not yet complete. Assange says that the Afghanistan documents are important because they contain "raw facts" (they contain, in fact, raw data) before they are massaged by the government and media. In another interview he advises that we "have to be careful reading this material" because of the inherent military bias contained in military reports. When asked if the material provides evidence of war crimes, Assange hedges, saying that the leaked "reports can be quite terse so I wouldn't want to prejudge the issue and say for sure that a war crime has been committed." But to ABC News, "it's pretty clear that at least some of these are war crimes."

Assange is right that readers must be extremely circumspect when consuming Army spin, even if it's designed for internal use only. But should we be circumspect about Wikileaks' spin on released documents? Take Assange's claim, repeated in dozens of interviews, that Wikileaks obtained a 32-page document outlining a U.S. intelligence plan to "destroy Wikileaks." But the document, available here, says nothing of the sort; it's merely a sleep-inducing intelligence assessment on what Wikileaks means to U.S. Army security. The quotes pulled by Assange that "prove" a conspiracy are clumsily and dishonestly wrenched from context and detail not a "plan to destroy" Wikileaks, but tactics on how the military can discourage leaking.

Looking at Assange's previous forays into journalism—where he authored stories and attempted to interpret data for the Wikileaks site—I stumbled upon this 2007 story about the archives of the East German secret police (Stasi), in which the WikiJournalist provides the wrong date for the country's collapse and, misreading a BBC news report, erroneously states that the CIA was prevented from "looting" the Stasi building of files by German "civil rights activists." (The cache of Stasi documents were obtained by Langley in 1992, when the agency allegedly paid $1.5 million to a former Stasi general. In other words, a paid leak.) And while we are being pedantic, most journalists should be aware that "newspaper" is one word.

The problem is not just that Assange posted 91,000 documents online having, by his own admission, read only 2,000 of them carefully. Nor is the problem the reckless exposure of brave Afghans who would rather not live under the jurisdiction of a fanatical religious cult. The real lesson for the Wikileaks team is that while obtaining secret documents is an integral part of journalism, it is not by itself journalism. And contrary to Assange's grandiloquent proclamations that he intends to "build a historical record, an intellectual record, of how civilization actually works in practice," in its four years of existence he has produced a handful of interesting and impressive scoops, but the dreaded "mainstream media" has done far more.

So by all means, Julian, stump for more openness, publish more leaks, continue your attempts to "achieve justice." But stop calling yourself a journalist.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine

NEXT: What Beer Deregulation Can Teach Us

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT:

    Tax dollars HARD at work.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews…..erage.html

  2. Is the Wikileaks “editor-in-chief” a journalist or an activist? Or both?

    As long as he continues to tell the truth, both.

    1. The quotes pulled by Assange that “prove” a conspiracy are clumsily and dishonestly wrenched from context and detail not a “plan to destroy” Wikileaks, but tactics on how the military can discourage leaking.

      One could say that if the Army does successfuly plug its leaks, WikiLeaks would be…destroyed.

      1. Hey, one could also say it’s just…”collateral damage.”

      2. One could also say that if I successfully defend my home against an invader, I have destroyed their ability to rob me.

      3. rubbish

      4. a bullet in the brain would achive the desired result. We have people in our government that are trained to do that sort of thing.

        No big loss if it did happen.

      5. but capn, the rats are jumping overboard after they ate the last cork.

        1. What rats?!?!?

    2. If he was willing to put some Taliban or Al Queda secrets on his site he wouldn’t be such a hypocrite.

      He won’t though, too afraid of a death fatwa.

      He probably won’t mess with the Russians or the Chinese either.

      But in the Age of Obama he has nothing to fear from the USA.

      1. nonsense

      2. If he was willing to put some Taliban or Al Queda secrets on his site he wouldn’t be such a hypocrite.

        To be fair, there aren’t many Taliban/Al Queda secrets – “Death to the Invaders & Infidels” is their fairly public (and refreshingly simple) strategic vision and their IED manufacturing processes are open-source.

        1. How about the plans on where they are going to plant the bombs, where’s the next suicide bomb going to blow up, communication channels with al Quaeda, location of bin Laden…

          1. the taliban use camel dung smoke signals

            1. That is ignorant. They are as sophisticated as any enemy our military has ever faced. They are probably the most adaptable enemy our military has ever faced.

              1. that was an attempt at humor

          2. Assange would need to leek more recent CIA Mossad emails in order to tell us where the next 7/7 will occur.

      3. They HAVE put up secrets from China and Russia. They also put up secrets from an al-Qaeda linked Islamic group in Somalia, talking about assassinating members of the fragile government there. The only reason Wikileaks is so America-focused right now is because they had a sudden influx of extraordinary leaks from Bradley Manning. They post leaks from everywhere.

        Incidentally, the Afghan War Diary suggests a number of connections between the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence. Don’t those count as Taliban secrets?

        1. No because that was never a secret.

          1. +1

          2. what about the isi cia bin laden connect?

            how well is that kno0wn?

            1. Uh pretty well known. The ISI and the CIA worked together to supply and train Bin Laden’s Mujahideen during the Soviet war. You, sir, are an idiot.

              1. o i mean AFTER that good sir.

                1. You may be talking about how Bob Grenier spoke with Mullah Beradar right after 9/11. In that conversation he almost had Beradar agree to disavow Mullah Omar and turn over Bin Laden. Beradar was almost ready to go. What a different world we would have today. I will let you look up who Bob Grenier is. I will let you fill us in on what crack pot conspiracy theory you are espousing.

                  1. so why don’t you tell us about bin laden’s magical escape from tora bora as he schlepped his dialysis machine over the khyber pass?

                    1. Actually I will tell you about that. As US forces pursued him and his senior leadership they realized what route he was going to take. The US made a deal with Pakistani and local militias to pick these guys up or at least stall them. Something went wrong and they made it through. Careful who you trust I suppose.

          3. Knowing something and having tangible proof are two very separate ideas. What we know can be denied. When we have proof, it changes the game in our favor (as voters who should have good information so that we might have a chance at putting the right people in the right places when making war policy).

            1. There is no such thing as “proof” anymore. There is always a reason to trust the validity of any piece of information. The only thing people can do is look at the preponderance of evidence and likely scenarios. It takes a little bit of analysis these days using reason and logic. But in a world where people esposes ideas and positions that are completely divorced of reason, logic, and objectivity it is very dificult.

              1. if i pour molten iron in your ear, isn’t that a geometric proof that you’re not gonna be happy in one shake of the salt?

    3. “Is the Wikileaks “editor-in-chief” a journalist or an activist? Or both?”

      Neither: He’s a two-bit profiteer. Nothing but a filthy capitalist keen to profit from other people’s deaths.

      1. Actually, the term you are searching for is “traitor”. And any media outlet that published this list is an accessory.

        1. ‘Traitor’ to whom, exactly? Assange isn’t American…

          1. Thank god he isn’t an American

          2. Thank god he isn’t an American

            1. and you can say that again

              1. assange is a traitor to the cause that says greed is good.

          3. If I hear one more American call a non-American a “traitor”, as if America had dominion over the world, I’m gonna use my fortune to build a combination Mosque/Strip Club/Gay Wedding Chapel *directly* next to The Pit at Ground Zero.

            1. I’ll chip in 5 bucks.

            2. Don’t worry. Fucktard americans don’t know that there are other countries out there. They believe the world’s population is composed of either americans or martians.

      2. got proof?

        didn’t think so

      3. Laughable! “a filthy capitalist keen to profit from other people’s deaths…” well aside from the fact that I take exception to such a use of the term “capitalist”, I would say that description far more accurately fits the warmongers that Assange is exposing. I can’t believe people still insist on calling Assange a murderer, death-profiteer, etc etc when what he is EXPOSING is the corruption of multiple countries engaged in decades-long conflicts over oil, minerals, drugs, and power with death counts in the millions. Talk about brainwashed.

  3. I think he is a pretty cool dude.

    Lou
    http://www.web-privacy.at.tc

    1. That would mke you a first class MORON.

  4. So is the Assange a journalist or an activist, writes Senior Editor Michael C. Moynihan. Or both?

    Can’t he be both and a Bond villain?

    1. Only if he has sharks with frikkin’ laser beams on their heads.

      1. The hairdo alone is villainous.

        1. Reminds me of the bad guy from Die Hard

    2. the man is MORAL intelligent and dedicated.

      david vs golitath

      1. Oh yeah, just like Ayers and Dohrn.

      2. Exposing, to a group of pathologically murderous thugs, the names, locations, and families of people who trusted the US with their lives is now a moral act?

        1. Agreed. +100

          Assange is repulsive for that act alone. Leave aside what you think about the war, exposing Afghans who as Moynihan said “would rather not live under the jurisdiction of a fanatical religious cult” isn’t just reckless, it’s downright evil. How he can dehumanise Afghans like that to serve his petty crusader mentality is beyond me.

        2. you sound scared for your own nasty actions

        3. there are many people worldwide who believe that the most dangerous pathological thugs are in the pentagon.

      3. Who the fuck is “golitath”?

        1. george

      4. You have a strange (distorted) sense of what is moral.

        1. you know me, right?

  5. When asked by Today Show host Meredith Vieira if the deaths of informants could be considered “collateral damage” in his attempt to stop the war in Afghanistan, Assange agreed.

    Wooooo, snap.

    1. With a carefree, break-a-few-eggs attitude like that, he as the makings of a senior White House foreign policy advisor.

      I think Wikileaksleaks has grainy night vision footage of informants being offed.

    2. let us know when you find evidence of one “informant” getting axed.

      1. So if these people have to pack up their families, leave their home and go on the run for the rest of their lives, that’s OK by you. It’s only bad if one of them dies?

        Great.

        1. let me know when you find an example of one person being harmed.

          meanwhile keep twisting in the wind.

          1. Once these news stories start popping up, will you return to the message board and agree how freaking reckless it was for him to name afgans who worked with the US?
            No, probably not.

            1. it’s true that i am new to this board and will not likely return often. so far haven’t seen much.

              it’s possible that our goon squads will kill a few of these people and SCREAM SEE. that’s how sick this vile imperial game has become.

              wikileaks is awesome.

              1. It’s nice that you already have a conspiracy theory planned for when one of these people gets beheaded.

                Why won’t you concede that it was reckless to forget to redact the names of these afgans?

                1. go deeper.

                  anyone interested in julian assange, check this ted talk out.

                  http://blog.ted.com/2010/07/19/why_the_world_n/

                  every effort was made for harm minimalization. they withheld 15,000 files because of human concerns.

                  do you doubt that the u.s. deliberately causes provocation with our assassin squads?

                  do you doubt that the u.s. military propagandists commit character assassination daily and manipulate the media?

              2. The fact that you found it is surprising. I imagine you apend most of your time commenting on the repeal of prohibition through prop 19on sites like indepentent politcal report.

                1. You are also probably a truther who believes nanothermite charges brought down the WTC.

                  1. tell us about the pools of molten iron that burned for weeks beneath each tower.

                    1. Wow!

                2. as i type this cannabis is de facto legal.

                  prop 19 will win in cali and will signal the beginning of the end of the drug war.

                  and we will blow pot smoke in your faces.

                  1. The one thing you and I will agree on. That doesn’t make you any less of a reactionary idiot who will atch onto any counter-culture conspiracy theory you can find. Try to have an original thought every now and again.

                    1. the molten iron?

                  2. You are a rare moron indeed if you don’t understand that most people here are all about ending the war on rights… drugs, I mean the war on drugs.

                    Then again, you appear to be susceptible to any stupid conspiracy plot you come across. Maybe you should look into Chemtrails.

                    1. yes we know some libertoonians oppose the drug war and hey good job at stoppin it.

                      molten iron what about the molten iron (in your shorts)?

                      and why was rummie hiding in his office?

                      and did prez bushie really fly into harms way on that fateful morn?

                    2. Full on, 100% tinfoil hatted, moonbat truther WACKJOB!!!!!!!!!!!

                    3. But he may be onto something with this whole “molten iron” thing…hmmmm

                    4. how would you know?

          2. I believe the Taliban already said they will kill them. I am betting that some of these informants are members of Taliban cells. All Mr. Taliban has do is read his buddies name and Bingo. He’s got some beheadin to do. Wamsagongo you are being intellectually dishonest and purposely blind.

            1. Where’s the outrage over the thousands of civilians killed in our wars? Yet the possibility of an informant having to move to the next town is an atrocity? This is such a stupid argument. There are thousands of people already dead from 9 years of bombs. Wedding parties and brides included.

              1. Apparently you have been living in a cave and haven’t heard about the RoE. I am not going to spell it out again. The NATO forces are under strict orders to eep civilian casualties down as low as is humanely possible. What you really want to say is get out of the war. War has casualties ours theirs and innocent civilians. Definition of what an inncocent civilian is would be nice. Most of the groups in Afghanistan are proud of their 0 civilian score. Also don’t believe the Hype. Stop listening to every talking head that says soldiers are indiscriminately killing civilians. Its actually quite rare. If you don’t believe come to Afghanistan. You will soon learn that it isn’t NATO people are afraid of.

            2. so was that mohammed with two m’s?

            3. intellectually dishonest and purposely blind !!??

              how so?

              1. You are intellectually dishonest because you clearly have not read any of the documents that have been leaked. I have read a few not all by a long shot. Many of the documents are interrogation reports and source reporting. There are also reports on civilian casualties. Do you know why they are in there? Because the NATO command has a response team that investigates these incidents. They use these reports to determine who they need to talk to along with Afghan government officials in order to develop an effective response to make as much right as they can. You also blindly follow whatever Julian Assange says and refuse to question him. He has lied on multiple occasions and doctored much of the footage that has been released. You could only be this blind through conscious thought.

            4. there are no taliban cells.

              there’s only bin laden on his dialysis machine.

              1. You cannot actually believe what you are saying. If you do it is because you don’t know any better. What do you call the group of Taliban that killed those two sailors recently. I suppose they aren’t a cell maybe they are just a group instead. You are a grade A moron who has never stepped out side your comfort zone in California. Stop being so provincial and go outside and learn something with your own eyes for once. Pathetic.

                1. insurgency aginst a foreign invader/usurper is what i would call it.

                  as for all your other blather, blather on

                  1. Exactly what is NATO usurping? Is Afghanistan nw called the NATO Republic of Afghanistan? Is it suddenly the 51st state? I’m sure your response will be that the US is setting up a puppet government. Karzai’s anit-US sentiment is pretty well known. The US wrks with him only because he was elected by the people of Afghanistan. They would have prefered Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. So tell me how calling a group of Taliban fighters a cell is in correct. As for Blather I think you need to review your posts. You have yet to argue anything on the merits. You enjoy posting nonsense and non sequiturs.

                    1. nato is a euphemism signifying nothing real but a media perception and a few unlucky boots on the ground.

                    2. I will agree with you on that one. However you have not addressed any of my arguments.

                    3. i don’t know how the taliban operate, cell shmell that’s your framing.

                      the most important cohesive entity in this part of the world is the clan/theocracy model.

                      somehow the taliban are affective insurgents whomever or whatever the construct.

                      we can’t win.

                    4. It is very clear that you are not familiar with how the Taliban operate. They are effective insurgents, but why are they effective. Tacticaly and strategically they don’t stand a chance against the US. However the US has tied itself down with unrealistic goals and restrictions. If the US did not so hinder themselves the Taliban would NOT be effective.

                    5. you do NOT have superior tactics and strategy. more bombs yes

                      their strategy and tactics – ON THEIR HOME FRIGGIN TURF – have been honed to sharpened perfection for thousands of years.

                      learn anything from the rooskies?

                      such monumental stupidity is at the core of the model u hup yo lep

                    6. You clearly are not paying attention. The reason that the Taliban have moved away from their original tactic, the Mobile Column, is because they were being destroyed. So they adjusted to a population centric PR campaign much the same as we did. They live and operate amongst the population. They do this for three reasons:
                      1. When operating among the population they are able to cause CF to accidentally kill Afghan civilians. From their they use the gullibility of the American people to convince them that CF are just randomly killing civilians. For instance TB insurgents attacked CF in helmand province. The insurgents were firing from a village at a CF patrol outside that village. The CF responded because they were being attacked and accidently killed an Afghan girl.
                      2. They are able to set up shadow governships and try to bring the people to their side through better governance.
                      3.It is easy to hide amongst the population.

                      The US could have tried to go with a scorched earth policy like the Soviets but we all know how that ended. So CF are under a great deal of restrictions during operations. So as I said the Taliban are greatly aided by the CF self inflicted handicaps.

                    7. the US supported the Taliban..that is a fact…US gave the Taliban $43 million…even CATO admits it. do you?

                    8. Nobody is denying that in the past the US has supported the Taliban. In fact the US has supported a lot of unsavory groups. Now it is coming back to bite them in the ass.

      2. Okay, It is not a big stretch to see how this is going to play out. Do a little research look up a little thing called “night letters.” People get those for letting women go to school. Imagine what would happen to a snitch.

        1. your kids having a swell time at public school?

          1. What? Dude you are hysterical.

            1. your kids aren’t having a good time at public school. there’s always the jesuits.

      3. I’m more interested in finding out when you get axed.

        1. another compassionate neocon with an l on his t shirt

    3. well yes these informants would be considered collateral damage. he isn’t claiming moral superiority

      collateral damage has been sanctified by the military and our highest ranking govt poobahs.

      in war someone always dies.

      1. So collateral damage is A-OK with you?

        “he isn’t claiming moral superiority”
        Are you sure about that?

        1. what does the military say about the acceptability/inevitability of collateral damage?

          in my view he is not claiming anything. he is doing what he thinks needs to be done.

          if he is right, then he is indeed morally superior.

          my personal assessment of the man is that he is morally superior to anything sitting in the pentagon with ribbons.

          yo

          1. Your personal assessment doesn’t amount to much. What exactly is right about what he is doing? What did he “expose” that iws so earth shattering. Have we seen video or reports of atrocities being committed. Don’t even bring up the Apache video. That one has been analyzed to death and it has been determined that the guys they were shooting were armed insurgents. That is why no one lost their job over it. So enlighten us Wamsagongo. What exactly is right about what dipshit has done?

            1. if there are no more secrets, then these fascist mf’s can’t function.

              truth must be hidden. propaganda rules.

              see the problem?

              1. Once again I don’t think you understand the nature of intelligence. Very little of it is actuall useful, firt of all. Secondly the secrets that really are important to keep are sources and methods. The reason most intel is classified is so the Intel Community won’t reveal how they are getting the information and therefore lose the source. There is nothing sinister about what is in those documents. Nothing critical or earth shattering was revealed. One day you will learn that the world is an unpleasant place. Your idea that “truth” is some how going to make everything better shows your naivet

                1. frankly there are no more secrets.

                  live with it.

                  1. HA HA HA. Look up how th intel community compartmentalizes their information. Assange has a small amont of Secret documents. He has yet to get into TOP SECRET let alone the many many compartments inside the intel commuity. Assange got nothing. This is all going to prove to be his undoig. He has all this hype for his “secrets”. He lets them out and it is completely anitclimactic. What a joke. He winds up hurting innocent people and proving the military ISN’T commiting war crimes. Good for the military, bad for Afghans.

                    1. consider this:

                      your top secret protections are only as strong as your weakest link (pun) intended.

                      people always try to cover their asses on the losing side of a phony war.

                      we got better than top secret we got magnetic intuition sim sum

                    2. I used to think that the government was a huge, overarching, fascist machine. Bent on oppressing human rights wherever they found them. With that in mind I began doing research and talking to people who had direct accessto alot of these things. What I found is that it is the banality of their crimes that is offensive. The wost things the gov’t and its agencies can be accused of is of aggregious wast of funding. THere is an office in one of these agencies that spent 600 dollars a chair for 300 chairs. Turns out the old chairs were fine and no one used the new chairs. Also I learned to a degree how it is set up. DoD set up their intel into compartments. If one is compromised the others will be safe. So Assange has nothing. No steady source, no back door into the network. This is his 15 minutes of fame. I hope the Gov’t has learned to better protect its information so more lives won’t be endangered.

                    3. the reason that we are still fighting this monumentally stupid war is that war is fundamentally necessary to sustain the chickenhawk compassionate neocon lifestyle.

                      why are we in afghanistan?

                      9/11 was an inside job. the official story is all surface gloss.

                      wanna debate that one?

              2. if there are no more secrets, then these fascist mf’s can’t function.

                Oh, wait, I get it, you’re on mommy’s computer while she’s out. I bet you’re hoping she brings you back a cookie.

                1. yum yum

          2. Sigh. Now we get into the moral relativism bit. Equating the joint chief’s accepting some collateral damage after extraordinary and often tactically ungainly rules of engagement and targeting procedures (everyone from the commanding general of the region to his fleet of lawyers has to stamp off on a kinetic strike) with the stated goal of causing the absolute minimum collateral damage to a group of people that has the stated goal of causing as much death and destruction to foist a Seventh Century philosophy on a population, is pretty incredible. Say what you will about our presence there, but, please don’t attempt to draw a parallel between the Taliban and the Joint Chiefs is ridiculous.

            1. * Chiefs ,its ridiculous.

            2. always liked the name “joint chiefs”

              taliban are more like the 1776 insurgents against the machine like red coats.

              1. OH MY GOD what a profound thought. I’m sure no one has thought of that one. Please regale us of accounts of decapitation and toddler hanging during the revolutionary war.

                1. different um strokes for different folks. same ol death.

                  1. Same old death? Looking forward to yours.

                    1. shaddup igor and drink your blood

                2. you know people didn’t think that stuff was cool

                  nowadaze the game has changed.

                  terror r us

              2. Yessir! Fighting for freedom and stuff! Mostly “stuff” that reflects a feudal society….

                1. Oops; that was in reply to this bit of crap:
                  “taliban are more like the 1776 insurgents against the machine like red coats.”

                  1. I figured. Lets see if we can list other similarities between the revolutionary war and the Afghan war. The revelutionary war was fought to seperate the colonists from an oppressive regime and forge their own country. The Taliban are fighting us so they can regain power and form an oppressive regime. The revolutionary war was fought so the colonists could enjoy rights they belived to be inalienable. The Taliban are fighting to regain power so they can seriously restrict their peoples’ rights. Anything I am missing?

                    1. only your ability to reason

                    2. Wamsagongo everyoe of your inane comments has thorroughly been countered and refuted. Perhaps it is your own ability to reason that is in question. It is strange to see someone cling to patently false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. But I suppose if you were to make an educated decision based on the evidence before you that would force you to change your clich? self image as a “revolutionary” Read a few Christopher Hitches books and you will learn what all your “revolutuinary heroes, like Che Guevara, are responsible for.

                    3. hitchens is gone. god bless his soul.

                    4. He has esophogial cancer. While that is a very serious form he is not dead yet. He certainly doesn’t see it that way. Hopefully his treatment will be successful. It will be a sad day indeed.

                    5. i can understand why you’d admire a guy like him but many progressives think he lost his way.

                      for some reason he sold out.

                    6. It may appear that he sold out. I think what really happend is he grew up and recognized that the world is not what it appears to be as seen through a young man’s eyes. He went to work camps in Cuba, he participated in socialist acitvist groups. It was his experience that shaped his views. It is because of that experience that he can easily debate and win on many of these issues. Most people who espouse socialist ideas have never actually experienced them or they turn a blind eye to the obious failings of those countries who adopted Socialism. He has seen it first hand and found that it was more opppressive and fascist than what was purported. As you have said many times in this thread “learn anything from history?”. Apparently we haven’t.

                    7. booze and debauchery did him in, turning away from his higher self.

                    8. I suppose Booze and smoking has led to his cancer. But it hasn’t damaged his intellect and ability to marshal a coherent stance on a subject that is more than the “party” line. A rare quality indeed and we will be all the more poor when he leaves us.

                    9. sorry he espouses the party line in fancy language izall which the cromags dig as it adds a degree of false dignity to their pathos.

                      he is also an atheist which in my view limits his thinking.

                      and frankly he’s simply another fascist sob. coulda been a true artist.

                    10. It appears you have little or no knowledge of Hitchens work or life. Forgive me if I disregard your opinion on this one.

                    11. have you read about eugene debs?

                      now he was a socialist worth admiring.

                    12. The revelutionary war was fought to seperate the colonists from an oppressive regime and forge their own country.

                      “Oppressive”? The British in the late 1700’s under George III in relation to the American colonies? LOL. You have a very low bar for the use of that term.

                    13. Nay government who violates basic rights of its citizens or needlessly levies excessive taxes is oppressive in my book. So yes I do have a low bar for it.

                    14. you are on the verge of a whole new realm.

                      enjoy

      2. Actually I don’t consider those to be collateral damage.

        Collateral damage is when those who are not combatants on either side wind up dead. It could be as simple as a stray bullet that hits someone unfortunate enough to live near a battlefield.

        The Afghans who are put at risk are those who are collaborators with the USA’s unjustified invasion.

        1. galt’s speech was awfully dumb.

          1. I haven’t read it but i heard it was just a rambling 60 page speech with no real point.

            1. galt explains why he has to run the world and make love to his beautiful girlfriend.

              he is the alpha male

    4. C O U L D be

  6. If he keeps manipulating video or documents in order to advance his position, then he’s neither, just a lying sack of weasel sh*t.

    1. If he keeps manipulating video or documents in order to advance his position, then he’s neither, just a lying sack of weasel sh*t an activist.

      1. sounds like you have something to hide.

        do you still kick your dog?

        1. Do you still suck yours?

    2. what position is he advancing?

      1. That the U.S. Military is teh eeeevil. And that all they do is kill innocents. It’s the same kind of status-seeking BS that leads faux intellectuals to wear turtlenecks in August.

        You know, like Gerry Mak.

        1. the so called leadership that created this war is evil.

          1. Including the current leadership that hasn’t ended it? Or would that burst your Obama-bubble of reality.

            1. obama was told what to do by the military.

            2. Sorry, but this guy ain’t a Obama supporter. The looney Alex Jones crowd doesn’t like Obama.

              1. wrong

                i support obama.

                lesser of many evils

          2. the so called leadership that created this war is evil.

            That would be your buddy, Osama bin Ladin. Yes, he is evil – just like you asswipe Marxists and Progressives.

            1. oh i think maybe neocon has had a little sumthin to do with the war.

  7. And unlike the Times, “they are an advocacy organization. They have a point of view, and an ideology…”

    I think there is a typo here

    should be:

    And like the Times, “they are an advocacy organization. They have a point of view, and an ideology…”

    1. Indeed. Most people forget that journalists are activists. The pretense that they are neutral observers is hypocrisy.

      1. journalism is a good paycheck for most of that crowd. they know what the boss wants and if they don’t provide it someone smarter and better looking will.

  8. I’m not making any commentary on the guy’s motives, ethics, etc. when I say that he has a truly, unbelievably punchable face. Seriously, he looks like Bill Maher but even douchier. What’s the word for that? Backpigfeigst or whatever?

    1. “…when I say that he has a truly, unbelievably punchable face.”

      That is a common trait among pale, skinny Austrailan men. full disclosure – I’m related, by marriage, to one of these punching bags

      1. He has a disturbing resemblance to “Angela” on The Office.

      2. the same can be said of your angry face.

    2. Backpfeifengesicht

    3. ghoulish thinking from a criminal neocon

      1. You must be really new here. We may be many things here but NeoCon is not one of them.

        1. you’ve been living too long squashed beneath the jack-boot

          1. DRINK!

            1. fiddley dink

    4. this place needs a laugh.

      would you post a picture of yourself?

  9. So by all means, Julian, stump for more openness, publish more leaks, continue your attempts to “achieve justice.” But stop calling yourself a journalist.

    And the cat hair starts flying all over . . .

    1. such concern over a label

      govt and biz need functioning transparency.

      the internet encourages free flow of info.

      the fascists are scurrying like rats caught out at sunrise.

      1. Who’s a fascist? Really? If you want to read a dictionary and figure out what that word actually means, please feel free to return and modify your language.

        1. dictionary.com says a fascist is:

          1. oops

            fascist:

            a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

            yoo hoo neocon yoo hoo

            1. tell us about ike’s m-i-c warning?

              1. I don’t believe that Obama is concidered right wing. Dicatatorial maybe. He is responsible for these documents as well. You think none of these were produced under his watch. It seems to me that you are still living in the 60s. Guess what buddy times have changed things are even more murky than they were. So for something you clearly have no clue about you have preoduced a lot of inane opinions.

                1. progressives see obama as a man with no balls, which certainly makes him right wing suspect.

                  this is a neocon chicken hawk war.

                  you know the m-i-c and your lack of response?

                  as for murky, wade in.

                  1. News Flash. The Neo-Cons have essentially been destroyed by all their failed policies. Progressives, while different policies, are espousing policies that have failed already throughout the world. I have gotten more involved in these murky events probably far more than you. Whether we agree with the causes for going to war or not we are at war. We have made a mess and now we have a responsibility to clean it up. Something you probably would never dare to do.

                    1. you wouldn’t recognize a progressive if he jumped in your face and sang kumbaya.

                      i am not at war and millions and million even billions of other people are not at war.

                      turn out the lights and go home.

            2. That’s not a good description. At all. Dictionary.com must not be very good.

              1. please give me another definition

            3. fascist:

              a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

              What could be more dictatorial and/or right wing than a bunch of religious fanatics like the Taliban?

              1. neocon fascists

                1. I don’t think so. Neocons are fucking choirboys compared to the atavistic Taliban.

                  1. yeah sure

          2. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

            “extreme” right-wing views is the modern defintion promoted by liberals over the decades. Nor would this describe neo-conservatives anyway. You sound like just another ignoramus who misuses the term for pretty much anyone you don’t like. I’ll just bet you call every other person a ‘racist’, too. I’m optimistic, though, and expect you’ll wise up one day.

            From http://www.dictionary.com, just to add a little context. You’ll note Fascism tends to take a bit from the statist tendencies of both the Right and the Left, which is why it was to be a ‘third way’ taking the best of both. Instead, we got the worst of both. Not a lot different from how Communism (as viewed by those without blinders) is too often practiced.

            fascism
            ?noun
            1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
            2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
            3. ( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922?43.

            fascist
            – noun
            1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
            2. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a fascist movement or party.
            3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

            1. One would hope a two party system would yeild the best of both. As we can all see that is sadly not true.

            2. you get by the word or pound?

              1. u get PAID by the word or lb?

                1. God I wish I got paid for this. I was wondering how people get involved in that. Bet you could make a ton of money off of this mental masturbation.

                  1. i was talking to the other guy.

            3. just as obama is not a socialist, man that one makes us laugh …..

              you truly truly do NOT have much understanding of the liberal progressive mind. kucinicich and franken okay but constrained

              at this point in time, that truth gives us an enormous leveraging device. wikileaks is only one example of the old peanut butter conspiracy which continues to spread.

              1. But they haven’t leaked anything of note. In fact no one cares about it anymore. No charges pressed, no Afghan pull out, no apology from anyone about anything. There is no conspiracy or instituionalized brutality and wikileaks proved it.

  10. When attacked for exposing the names of Afghan informants, and potentially exposing them to Taliban retribution, Assange lapsed into incoherence[…]

    I would say the following: If people were really serious about the well being of Afghanis, they would not have invaded a country and turn brothers into enemies. Your sudden, new-found and expedient concern for their safety is really touching, my heart is bleeding.

    But I guess he was caught unawares.

    1. Amen. Since the U.S. military is actively killing Afghan civilians, their sudden concern for the safety of their informants is slightly hypocritical, to say the least.

      1. Except if you look at what the actual strategy is, no we are not ‘actively’ killing civilians. Counter-Insurgency strategy is based around the protection of civilian populations.

        There is a sea of moral distance between that strategy, which cannot wholly eliminate collateral damage and tries to protect civilians as much as possible, and the Taliban raping and lynching entire families purposefully because Assange didn’t want to black out a few names.

        Like doing so would have hurt the information value of the documents.

        1. Where does this idea that the Military is actively killing civilians. I believe there have recently been a lot of issues of the rules of engagement needlessly endangering NATO troop’s lives. You might wonder why those rules of engagement are there in the first place. I will tell you why. The Afghan campaign is a PR campaign. The strategy has essentially been “Hugs not Drugs”. The strategy is to make the Afghan people like us more than the Taliban. Now I am skeptical about the effectiveness of this but what I will say is the military leadership is dedicated to it. So they have set up rules of engagement that are designed to reduce to almost zero the civilian casualties. So if you believe that the NATO troops are indiscriminately killing civilians out there just remember, don’t believe the Hype.

          1. I can’t stand the reflexive “The U.S Military is just slaughtering civilians” far-left bullshit. There’s never any nuance to it. It’s always My Lai 24/7, 365 to these idiots. Nevermind the great lengths McChrystal went to in order to avoid civilian deaths.

            The inverse of this of course, is the “This war would be over by now if OBAMA WOULD JUST LET THEM WIN” Tom Clancy fantasy the NeoCon/Fascist Right adores. Y’see, they haaaate the Gov’t but they lovvvve the cops and generals that embody coercive Gov’t power. Nevermind that McChrystal was the one pressuring troops to keep civilian deaths down, *not* Obama.

            When it comes to the Afghanistan debate, I feel like a line from the opening crawl of Revenge of the Sith sums it up: “There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere.”

        2. let us know when you find something real

          and then maybe we can discuss the internationally famous helicopter video as well.

          1. I have you ever actually watched the video. In it you can clearly see that a couple of the guys have AK-47s slung on their backs. If it was such a heinous masacre why has no one been brought up on charges? I have seen guys be brought up on war crimes charges for far less. You need to look at things objectively and stop believing everything you see on TV. Think critically. No conspiracy theory stands up to critical thinking.

        3. counter insurgency is all about terrorizing the citizenry into obedience.

          1. No, it isn’t, you thick log.

            CI strategy involves winning the allegiance of the civilian population and subverting any attachment they have to enemy forces.

            In practical terms, this means pressuring local government to reduce corruption and abuses, providing security, rolling out medical and humanitarian services and highlighting enemy atrocities.

            1. the afghani think you’re devil worshipers.

              1. It’s Afghan not Afghani.

        4. as if some young scared witless trigger happy fool gets nervous.

      2. A so called Civilian carrying a weapon or planning a bombing is fair game. Do you have a problem understanding that? Fool!

        1. it’s not a game.

          1. Game as in prey – not play, you fool. Perhaps English isn’t your native language?

            1. you bomb deer?

              1. If they get in the way.

                1. then you’re fair game.

    2. “I would say the following: If people were really serious about the well being of Afghanis, they would not have invaded a country and turn brothers into enemies.” I agree that the US has no business in Afghanistan or Iraq, but to think that it was the invasion of Afghanistan that caused the turmoil there, is ignorant.

      1. by garsh golly we is nation builders.

        ah yerp

        1. I missed the point of your silly post.

          1. It was probably pointless.

        2. yeah your post was silly first which is why i made a silly remark loop.

    3. Old Mexican has it exactly right.

      +1

  11. One can only contemplate that when Assange has his way and “ends war” and the rough men who once protected him are gone, he will eventually stand face to face with the barbarian. The one that knows or cares not for Assange’s sensitive qualities. At that moment, when his existence is about to come to an abrupt and bloody end, will Assange still have that same stupid look on his face?

    1. prediction:

      when you are hauled away for war crimes you will need a change of panties.

      1. You will regret your posts in the morning when you sober up.

        If not, will you at least explain them then?

        1. honest thinking required

      2. I find it hilarious that tools that throw around the term fascist are the first to talk about hauling off people for war crimes.

        1. Why are you lot feeding the trolls. It only encourages it.

          1. aww do I have to? This one is especially eager to display his idiocy and bumper sticker philosophies. Its actually kind of fun to egg this one on.

        2. man we got us a list of fascists you would not believe.

          wonder if wikileaks will publish?

          1. Only if you can separate the pages – which I doubt.

            1. you mean files

          2. What exactly are the fascist policies we are espousing here? Opinions on the war itself run the gamut every thing from, “Get out yesterday!” to “Maybe we shouldn’t have gone in to begin with, but we should finish what we.”

            1. fascists are vampires of empire.

        3. ya mean im not allowed a prediction?

      3. Ands whi is going to do that? You? You stupid little man?

        1. Oops… WHO not whi. Asshoes like you make me crazy. It’s a damn good thing that we are not having a face to face conversation. You would not like the outcome.

          1. kumbaya cmag

    2. One can only contemplate that when Assange has his way and “ends war” and the rough men who once protected him are gone, he will eventually stand face to face with the barbarian.

      Of course: the only thing standing between Julian Assange and a ragtag group of Islamic zealots with no territorial ambition beyond Afganistan and the loopier parts of Pakistan, is the US military. They’re fighting to protect him. Sure.

  12. If Assange wants to spread the truth but limit collateral damage, he should ask for help in redacting the documents from the military, and the military should agree to help him.

    Let them help him identify information *he* doesn’t want to see spread.

    1. So is Radley Balko an activist or a journalist?

      He does great journalism but obviously has an extreme and radical point of view that all people should be treated equally and fairly before the law and he has an activists zeal in what he does IMO…why do such distinctions matter so long as people like Radley and Assange hold the States’ feet to the fire.

      1. why do such distinctions matter

        Is Balko doing something that puts peoples lives in jeopardy?

        1. Yeah. The lives of the Afghans and the lives of the troops are in danger the longer the war goes on. Wikileaks shortens the war, and Balko dislikes what Wikileaks does.

          1. Wiki leaks has yet to have any real impact. It has not shortened the war. It was an insignificant event after the data was relaeased and everyone saw how banal the data was.

      2. Does Balko photoshop the videos he posts to slant the stories as Wikileaks did in “Collateral Murder”?

        1. this is garbage. they released the ENTIRE video.

      3. Does Balko lie?

        Because Assange did by omitting important information in the “Collateral Damage” video.

        He’s neither an activist or journalist. He’s a propagandist that specializes in viral half-truths.

    2. wikileaks is a VERY CAREFUL organization whose time has come.

      if attacked they have a couple of million sensitive documents to be released immediately.

      guess what? this small band of code breakers can’t be stopped from getting their stuff out on the net. they are smarter than an army of govt hacks combined.

      tuff noogies neocon.

      suhweeet

      1. Fuck your mother, commie.

        1. there there

          now now

      2. Why don’t you say allah hu’akbar and be done with it?

      3. Yes, they very carefully cropped out images of RPGs, they very carefully edited video to ensure a favorable conclusion, and they very carefully molded the data into their chosen narrative.

        1. Why do you keep repeating this lie? Just because you keep saying they edited the video doesn’t make it true. They released the ENTIRE video, end to end.

          1. Alright I’ll bite – how do you know they released the entire video? Because they said they did?

            1. maybe because it was longer than a sound byte

        2. sounds like he learned well from your side.

      4. Again I ask what exactly has wikileaks exposed. Apparently the documents aren’t even top secret. They haven’t exactly brought the US government to its knees. It has brought Asghan sources to their knees just before they are beheaded by the Taliban.

        1. suddenly we are having a conversation and that’s good.

          1. So what is your response? What is it that wikileaks has done that is so groundbreaking other than be a giant hypocite. They have needlessly endangered people lives. Isn’t that what this is all about? Your hero Julian Assange is nothing more than a opportunist. Do you know how he got those documents? Well it wasn’t through his amazing “hacking” skills. I have been following this story since before the Helicopter video was released. Bradley Manning admitted to smuggling the video out as well as tens of thousands of documents. This fell into Wikileak’s incompetent lap.

            1. fact is that wikileaks has millions of docs from every agency imaginable because good people are sick of the bullshit.

              1. Really? And we are of course sure of their authenticity? In this age of photoshop and powerpoint is it outside the realm of possibility that some of them are indeed fake. Will it be a stunning game changer like the documents already released? I goody I hope so. I can learn more about the logistics in Afghanistan. There is’t anything from any of the 3 letter agencies in the first batch. Wamsagongo has never looked at the files.

                1. no

                  propaganda based upon fear and hatred is your trip.

                  1. In which post have I participated in fear or hate mongering? Please point them out. I believe there is a disconnect between your keyboard and your brain. Or perhaps there isn’t and that is the problem. You have not made one meaningful contribution to this thread. It seems that the prevailing opinion here is that what Julian Assange did by releasing these documents was wrong due to the fact that it endangers lives. His credibility is in question due to lies of omission and doctored data. Some here believe that if the information contained within these documents reveals evidence of wrong doing then there will be some benefit in their release. However when the documents are reviewed they turn out to primarily be mundane situation reports. There are reports that show evidence of civilian casualties but not even close to the amount that is being sensationalized by the media from both sides. Was Julian Assange an activist or a journalist? I believe he is an opportunistic activist rather than a journalist. A journalist would have held on to these documents and analyzed them. They would have released their analysis along with the pertinent documents over time. Assange did not do this; instead he posted them on the internet in the most melodramatic way possible. He hoped this would have the effect of scaring people about the big bad government and blurring the reality of what was actually contained in the documents. He was successful on both counts. He did this to send a message and hopefully change American policy in the direction of pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq. These are the actions of an activist. The only reason he was able to do this was through pure luck. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, who was disgruntled and likely maladjusted, decided he would take it upon himself to steal a huge amount of data at random. He didn’t have a plan for any of this he just did it so he could get back at the Government. My guess is that Manning has been a giant fuck up since he has been in the Army and blamed everyone else but himself. Along comes Assange and takes the data off of Manning’s hands, consequently leaving Bradley holding the bag just in time to go to jail, likely for the rest of his life. What does Assange do? He goes on a luxury tour around the world touting his grand success. Wamsagongo, perhaps you could expound on why you think Assange and his actions are benefitting society. Assange has not only endangered the lives of others but he also took advantage of an idiot kid. So yeah he is a great guy.

                    1. well maybe if you guys YELL & THREATEN some more, that could convince me.

                    2. Again your response has no relation to anything previously posted. Do you even read what other people post. Or do you just say whatever pops into your head. Try to refute what people say based on the merits. Some very good points have been made on either side of this debate but none by you. I think you are to uninformed to have a credible opinion.

                    3. and thank you very much for spending so much time and effort informing me of my folly.

                      why must you label assange? he is who and what he is, a moral man who opposes the horrors of big govt and biz.

                      haven’t you noticed a public awakening?

                      look around, ay? and have a nice day

                    4. That’s pretty funny, jumping all over him for “labeling” Assange, when you’ve spent all of your time on this board slinging insults left and right.

                      And I don’t know about Toolbag, but I for damned sure haven’t noticed any public awakening. Just the same old gossipy, rubbernecking America that I know and love.

                    5. har har harrrrr

                    6. ya mean to say the poor guy was “disgruntled and maladjusted”?

                      good thing he’s the only one and we got him in some gitmo in isloation ’cause he might have swallowed some more files or worse has a contagious disease.

                    7. Turns out he is gay. Which I found very interesting. So now everyone is going to say this is some how a conspiracy to prove that gays can’t be in the military. Have faith there are plenty of gays in the military and everyone in their unit knows they are. They really only get kicked out if someone is just an asshole and pushes them out (exception not the rule) or they want out and so they tell their officer.

  13. to “build a historical record, an intellectual record, of how civilization actually works in practice,” in its four years of existence he has produced a handful of interesting and impressive scoops, but the dreaded “mainstream media” has done far more.

    How many scoops have you got in the last four years that you can directly measure having an effect on people’s lives either positively or otherwise?

    1. there are many scoops of ice cream but not so many types of cone says ancient druidish proverb.

  14. Why is Reason propagating the myth that only people who pretend to be unbiased can be journalists. If thats the case, then Michael C. Moynihan should stop considering himself a journalist.

  15. Wait, I thought this was a libertarian magazine? Isn’t military lies and murder worthy of mention? Isn’t it important to discourage the web of secrecy the state holds? Assange is a hero, plain and simple.

    1. The Reasonoids are upset that he gave the info out for free. Had Assange sold the documents at 50 cents a word they’d be cheering him on. Endangering human life is only acceptable when profit is at stake (it’s the “Anything for a fast buck” rule).

    2. Um, Wikileaks lied…
      You can have philosophical differences about the need for our foreign policy, but you can’t prove your point by lying. It basically destroys the credibility of the leaker.

      They left out 30 minutes of video and carefully cropped all of the images in order to expunge any evidence of wrongdoing on the side of the “photographers”…up to and including RPG-7s.

      1. For the last fucking time, they released both the full video and a shortened one (clearly labeled as such).

      2. Repeating a lie does not make it true. The entire video was released.

        1. if you repeat it often enough ….

  16. While I cannot disagree strongly enough with endangering people’s lives, I have to say that the existense of Wikileaks – an entity that can’t be gagged by invisible gag orders, or controlled by mainstream sensibilites or taken off the airwaves by corporate sponsor disapproval gives me hope. It is sui generis. It is the only true, free press left; albeit an online press. For humanitarian reasons, Wikileaks should have removed the names of informants or military personnel in sensitive areas, I believe, but apart from making that sad error, they give us something that exists nowhere else and certainly not in the mainstream media – that being information we should have access to but that is kept from us for a variety of political (read “spin”) reasons.

    1. you need to look into the story more closely.

      the reason they withheld 15,000 files from release is that they had concerns about endangering people.

      assange and his team were very careful with the documents, and worked under difficult pressured circumstances.

      so far there is no evidence of anyone being harmed. it would be page one for the next week on all of murdoch’s rags if and when.

      again, these are very MORAL people willing to risk their lives for the truth.

      1. You don’t know the meaning of morality, you bit of excrement. The only lives those people are risking are those of others.

        1. ten commandments

          1. Ten Commandments? Who read them to you?

            1. moses

      2. How many people need to inform you that you are a morally repugnant turd and unbearably stupid as well? You wouldn’t know morality if it bit you in on your poseur ass. There are Afghans risking their lives every day trying to hold off the possibility of the Taliban returning to power. But putrid, posturing pukes like you claim that smug, narcissistic, self-serving excrement like Assange and his associates are moral and are risking anything? You are a vile, pointless little cretin.

        1. have a nice day

        2. you the poster boy?

      3. So I guess you feel the same way about the Climategate leaker/s? Those leakers truly risked a lot in exposing the existence of an real-life conspiracy dedicated to preserving a political and financial agenda from inconvenient scientific truth. I haven’t noticed them parading around the world, feted by the media. Assange is a douchebag poseur.

        Talk to Ayaan Hirsi Ali about the dangers of actually speaking truth to power.

        1. read some gandhi re speaking truth to power

        2. So I guess you feel the same way about the Climategate leaker/s? Those leakers truly risked a lot in exposing the existence of an real-life conspiracy dedicated to preserving a political and financial agenda from inconvenient scientific truth. I haven’t noticed them parading around the world, feted by the media. Assange is a douchebag poseur.

          The climategate emails were released via WikiLeaks.

      4. God you just believe anyone tells you. The newest batch that wikileaks is preparing to release is mostly corparate documents. This al reads like a bad bond script.

        1. bawwnnnd

          chaaaames

          bawnnnd ……….?

        2. you know the docs explaining where the off shore money she go poof

          1. WTF are you talking about?

            1. come mr tally ban

              tally me banana

              day ooooooo

            2. say whatever happened to the two trillion bucks that rummie said the pentagon had misplaced like just before 9/11?

            3. hidden trillions offshore

    2. I’m not convinced it is a true free press. It seems to me that it has a clear cut agenda that it makes no effort to hide. While I am in total agreement that in this day and age of news outlets that are little more than paid cheerleaders for a particular agenda we need a source that is unbiased and cn be trusted. Wikilieaks is no it.

      1. good job thus far.

        dig deeper

    3. wikileaks will release not just state info, but personal info that an individual would not want released, whether its afghan informants or membership lists of politically incorrect parties. All at the whim of an organization which decides what to leak if it serves their cause.

  17. @Pizzly,

    “Isn’t it important to discourage the web of secrecy the state holds? Assange is a hero, plain and simple.”

    In fact, he’s Obama’s personal hero, since Obama is all in favor of more transparency and stuff…

    1. “In fact, he’s Obama’s personal hero, since Obama is all in favor of more transparency and stuff…”

      Lol. But really, I don’t get how people are so against wikileaks. Our military is “supposed” to be voluntary, but as long as there are secrets it’s not even close.

      1. I’m against Wikileaks because I don’t subscribe to the “information wants to be free” hacker-culture horseshit. And I’m against Julian Assange in particular because he’s principally an egomaniac, not an activist, and certainly not a hero.

        1. truth needs to be TOLD.

          for example, the people need to know that more civilians are being killed than reported.

          this war is KILLING the usa.

          1. for example, the people need to know that more civilians are being killed than reported.

            Really? By which side?

            1. your side

              1. Bullshit – pure and simple.

                1. history is always written by the victorious.

          2. How would you know what’s going on in Afghanistan, you wretched little tool?

            1. i have google maps

              1. Google Maps don’t show real time views, imbecile.

                1. they do when you have the software.

                  1. Uh..yeah. And I suppose you want us to believe you have access to that kind of software? Well, imbecile, talk’s cheap – takes money to buy whiskey, or money talks and bullshit walks. Put up or shut up.

                    1. o pretty please believe me

          3. Take away the self-righteous non-sequitors and the hyperbole, and what’s left?
            Uh, nothing.

            1. and 90,000 sensitive files

              1. wamsagongo|8.7.10 @ 8:14PM|#
                “and 90,000 sensitive files”

                Read them, did you?

                1. didn’t read a single one.

                  don’t have to

                  to know which way the wind is blowin.

                  1. It’s blowin’ up your ass – along with the pot smoke apparently.

                    1. you’re kinda cute

          4. IT WASN’T THE TRUTH

          5. Got proof? Guess what its not in those leaked documents. I don’t think Wamsagongo has even read any of them.

            1. read the guardian’s excellent article or even your hated new york times

              use some discernment but not too much)

              1. If that is your evidence then you are pathetic. Don’t be scared of all those cute little dots those aren’t all CIV CAS events. I went through the spreadsheet. I am guessing I am more qualified to look at this than you and anyone a the Guardian. Of all the possible CIVCAS (Civilian Casualties) events there are only 44 rows. The vast majority of those are Afghan on Afghan violence. Guess what everytime it says Army it doesn’t mean US Army it means Afghan Army. There are a few CF CIVCAS events and most of those were accidents. As I have said Don’t believe the Hype. Think for yourself, look at the actuall data your self. If that is your evidence then you are pathetic. I went through the spreadsheet. I am guessing I am more qualified to look at this than you and anyone a the Guardian. Of all the possible CIVCAS (Civilian Casualties) events there are only 44 rows. The vast majority of those are Afghan on Afghan violence. Guess what everytime it says Army it doesn’t mean US Army it means Afghan Army. There are a few CF CIVCAS events and most of those were accidents. As I have said Don’t believe the Hype. Think for yourself, look at the actuall data your self. My god this wikileaks thing would be good for the military if it weren’t for a public that is reactionary and so willing to blame those who are actually being effected. You people make me sick.

                1. t

                  that was nice.

                  i love our military and feel sorry for everything happening to good people everywhere.

                  i don’t give a hoot what’s in these files. i know what’s going on because i learned a long time ago to read between the lines.

                  1. Reading comprehension seems hard enough for you. Don’t try to read between the lines. Your head may explode.

                  2. No you don’t have any love for our military. If you did you would see that continued leaks are not healthy for them. The documents do contain information that reveals how the military operates. These are going to be used by the Taliban to kill more of our soldiers. So save me your GHandi crap you care only for your own sad self image.

                    1. good

                      time to leave that country bub

                    2. Exactly what do you think the Afghans should do when we leave? Whether we agree with going to war or not we are at war. If we leave the Afghans will pay the price. I’m not sure if you are aware of the history but after the Russians pulled out Afghanistan was racked by civil war and rampaging warlords. It was one of the darkest periods in the countries history. The Taliban put a stop to that. They installed themselves and set up a brutal government under Shuria law. If we leave can expect that to happen again. Do we have no obligation or responsibilty to them?

                    3. your convenient frame and description are blindly biased almost hopelessly so.

                    4. Qualify that satement. I have used historical events for my analysis.

                    5. for one thing

                      you believe in the mission (blinding filter).

                      for another

                      you don’t understand the people of that historic land (although you ARROGANTLY think you do). really what outsider could?

                      because you have been taught a lot of bullshit about your own country that just ain’t so.

                      is some of the problem

                    6. I am well more studied in the history of the Afghan people than you give me credit. Also I never have said that I agree with the mission. In fact I have alluded to the fact we probaly shouldn’t be there. However I do believe in responsibility. If yoyu jump into a lake to save a drowning person you don’t leave them 100 feet from the shore. Now whether we through Afghanistan into the lake or not is a matter worth debating. I am willing you cannot name three members of Karzai’s Cabinet. Or the capital of Helmand. Do you know why the director of the Afghan National Security Directorate resigned? What is a great way to make friends with an Afghan? WHat are the two primay languages of Afghanistan? I’ll give you one Dari? Dari is considered an ancient form of what language? I am willing to bet you can’t answer a single one of these question with out the internet. I acan answer these and many others. I am well aware of what goes on in Afghanistn because I wish to have informed opinions. Give it a shot some time. It’s pretty interesting.

                    7. i give you a lot of credit i think you’re a decent fellow when you’re not wearing your asshole on your sleeve.

                      as stated a few times here: i smoked some really good hash in the sixties, made a lasting impression. created an empathetic and mystical aura of subterranean homesick blues.

                      you’re right i don’t know the names of karzai’s gangsta brothers. why is that important? life is not a pop quiz.

                    8. I believe it is important to be informed. I find that more often than not people are forming opinions based on the bullshit they are fed by the Media of today. I don’t care what websites you visit, news you watch, or pamplets you read, they are all trying to force an opinion on you. I think if more people were willing to go out of their way to learn about a situation we may not find our selves in the many messes we are drowning in today. Also I don’t think got into an Hash in the 60s. I suspect you weren’t even alive then. My guess is you were born in the 90s. If that is not the case then act your age and show that you have learned something from your own history and experience. As for being an Asshole, I think som self reflection is required on your part, you seem to think that it is OK to leave peopel in the Lurch just because it is hard to help them.

                    9. geeeze louise

          6. I don’t think you much care about what kills America. I will grant you that these wars are having a devastating effect on America and are unhealthy. I don’t think you care or know why. You just want latch onto the cliche of beeing against the man wiithout even understanding what it is you are against. What a hollow life.

            1. gongggggg

        2. information NEEDS to be free.

          info doesn’t have a bias.

      2. Our military is “supposed” to be voluntary, but as long as there are secrets it’s not even close.

        Voluntary doesn’t have to mean stupid. Secrecy in military matters makes some sense if you want to maintain an advantage. If you don’t want the advantage, or a military at all, that is a different matter.

        Now, does the military cover its ass just like any other organization of human beings – of course, and penetrating that veil is reasonable. But you have to read thru all that shit to expose the right stuff – not just release all of it without due consideration. Sorry if that implies a bit of work rather than simply basking in the glow of the praise of the ignorati.

        1. get to work

      3. but as long as there are secrets it’s not even close.

        That’s stupid.

      4. “Our military is “supposed” to be voluntary, but as long as there are secrets it’s not even close.”

        I’ma need you to go ahead and flesh that out with some actual connective logic there. Also the scare quotes go around voluntary, not supposed.

  18. were you touching yourself when you wrote this?

  19. Assange’s bio pieces seem to point to a much more fragmented and less formal education than other Australians receive. We should therefore not be surprised to see that coming out in what he says, does or writes. However, play the ball and not the man. He is absolutely spot on that the media has been napping for ages now. Look at all the stuff Colbert and Stewart do – analysis and interviews we should be seeing as mainstream media, but are not. I could cite many, many examples of the media not doing its job. If the media were doing a fine job, there would be no need for Wikileaks. Clearly, whistleblowers do not find media avenues for their material credible, safe or worthy of the risk. And by the way, Wikileaks contains more than just US military documents-Americans might be surprised to learn that.

    1. Colbert and Stewart? You can’t be serious. They are mediocre comedians, Daniel Tosh will kick their asses, literally.

      1. No shit. There is a world of difference between journalism and entertainment. Reminds me of Network – from the executive perspective.

        1. You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it!

      2. colbert is superb. stewart smokes too much herb for his own good.

        stewart is greatly admired by the university types worldwide.

    2. “Wikileaks contains more than just US military documents-Americans might be surprised to learn that.” Boy I know I would. What other countries secret military documents can be found there?

      1. paraguay

        1. jock strap sizes of the national soccer team for those who care.

    3. julian assange is a genius and very very articulate. at 16 he was a famous hacker code breaker. do they teach that in schoolie?

      he walks the walk. every media outlet is falling over itself in the mad rush to get coverage.

      superb baritone too

      1. Ah, at first I thought you were just trolling this thread, but now I see.

        Julian! How’s it going? Or is that Julian’s mom?

        1. It’s probably what came out of Julian’s Mom’s ass when she was sick.

        2. No, probably a snot-nosed, pimple-faced wannabe. He probably thinks Julian is getting laid with all his fame.

          1. beep beep

            beeeeeeeep

  20. anything you wish to discuss bubba?

    and who is john galt?

    1. He’s your worst fucking nightmare.

      1. last time i checked galt was a fictional character is a second rate book.

    2. ditto

      1. what-me-book

    3. How about we discuss how much everyone is tooling your pathetic smug little ass, you buttnut?

      1. check your blood pressure

      2. check your blood pressure

        1. please check your blood pressure.

          1. the molten iron?

            1. yes please tell me about the molten iron that burned for weeks in the sub-basements of the wtc’s.

  21. The more interesting story is why the US gov demanded wikileaks return the documents and delete them.

    I bet if they release any more, the US will put Assange on the FBI 10 most wanted list.

    1. o prolly for the same reason that ol bin laden never made it to the most wanted list.

      1. Uh, actually he did…the molten iron?

        1. yes you are right but interestingly not for 9/11 but for prior stuff.

          im typing quickly, with not much deep thought generally required here.

  22. joe, Chony, MNG and all of Dan T’s personalities can retire now. They couldn’t gang rape a thread and make it worse than this.

    1. Now I miss Joe. *sniff*

      1. Heyyyy Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand.

  23. I guess it all depends on which deaths you admire more.

  24. Very few journalists make the distinction between journalist and activist. Most of them think the words mean the same thing.

    1. tell that to the wall st journal

      1. or

        usa today for all for your cutting edge news

  25. Imagine if when the Nuremburg Trials were held, those on trial had been the leakers, instead of the sick, twisted, governments committing the war crimes!

    1. First godwin!

      1. Does Godwin apply in the thread of an article containing a hyperbolic Nazi comparison?

        1. Interesting question.
          The article references Assange godwining his claims, so that might qualify as the first godwin of the thread.

      2. Nope. The first godwin was, naturally, from Assange himself at the top of the article and in its ripest form — a reference to Nazi concentration camps:

        “Assange asked attendees of the 2010 Oslo Freedom Forum to remember the “statement that was put by the Nazis on front of concentration camps that ‘work brings freedom,’…”

        1. Hmm, perhaps that was more of a meta-Godwin.

  26. The NYT won’t even use the word “torture” to describe what the US does, even though they’re quick to use that word when foreign torturers are being discussed. They’re activists, too, and if they’d been a little bit more responsible and unbiased, then maybe there’d be no need for this silly guy Assange.

    It’s their fault he exists.

    1. uk’s guardian and germany’s der spiegel were very willing and eager as well

      something about the competitive nature of capitalism where the capitalist sells that last bit of thick rope to the long-haired drooling phreakazoid

      1. Indeed.

        I’m sure state-owned newspapers would be far more eager to call their bosses torturers.

        1. Only when they tell us to.

        2. no but wikileaks might

          1. Replace “might” with “did.” Now replace “did” with “did in a capitalistic society.”

            Doesn’t that feel better? You’re catching on.

  27. Journalist? Activist?

    Traitor works for me. Pro-Fascist too.

    As Orwell said in 1942, “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”

    1. assange is a truth revealer and not at all a pacifist.

      truth tellers understand the consequences of truth telling.

      1. HE LIED YOU TWIT

        1. proof?

      2. the molten iron?

        1. * POOLS * of m i

    2. One can only betray that to which one owes loyalty. Assange owes nothing to the U.S., he is an Australian citizen.
      Whatever else he might possibly be, he is not a traitor.

      Your view is so typically American. Not only do the citizens of this country owe blind allegiance to whatever the U.S. decides to do, but apparently everyone else in the world owes the same blind allegiance – in your world.

      BTW it’s 2010, not 1942. Did you mean to call Assange pro-terrorist? Or did you mean to say, “if you’re not for me, you’re agin me”, like they say in the hills. It’s not a particularly sophisticated worldview there – or anywhere.

      Orwell, really! You’re quoting Orwell
      against Wikileaks without any obvious sense of irony at all.

      1. Yes, I’m quoting Orwell. I’ve read most of his books and fair number of his essays, plus a biography and the Hitchens volume, “Why Orwell Still Matters.” Far more than you have, I’d bet.

        You probably don’t know that Orwell secretly gave names of his former leftist comrades to the British government and I’m glad there was no weaselly traitor like Assange around to leak that bit of information while Orwell was alive.

        Assange is an Australian citizen and Australia has soldiers fighting in Afghanistan too. So yes, I consider Assange a traitor in the strict sense of betraying his country as well as the larger sense of betraying freedom and democracy.

        1. Orwell gave us a chilly vision of a totalitarian world. He gave us “big brother”. He named our dark fears about unchecked power and control. The helplessness of the individual against that crushing, twisting power of the unfettered state. He showed us a world of disinformation.

          Freedom and democracy are important to protect so that we never become that world. However, freedom and democracy are based on truth, not lies, not disinformation. But if the information withheld has less to do with national security and more with santizing the image of the war, we are going in the wrong direction – toward extemisim, not away from it.

          I agree with concerns about safety of the military and its informants and I wish things had been handled differently in that regard. But I also wish our government would not treat us like children who “can’t handle the truth”. Or maybe they are afraid of just how we would handle it.

          Assange is a traitor because there are Australian troops in Afghanistan? When did not supporting a given war make you a traitor?

        2. hey hux

          aldous huxley

          doors of perception

      2. Last time I checked the Australians were actively involved in the Afghan war. Do you think it is possible he may have leaked something that will have an effect on their soldiers in Afghanistan.

        1. ah yes those aussies are so happy happy fighting eeevil.

          1. I know quite a few who do fight in Afghanistan, whether they like it or not is irrelevant. Their lives are still in jeopardy.

            1. not quite

              1. Is Obama president in you reallity?

            2. why is personal happiness irrelevant in this specific situation?

      3. BTW it’s 2010, not 1942. Did you mean to call Assange pro-terrorist? Or did you mean to say, “if you’re not for me, you’re agin me”, like they say in the hills. It’s not a particularly sophisticated worldview there – or anywhere.

        Put it this way, dipshit: “you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem” – or you keep your mouth shut and mind your own fucking business. See? We’ve given you a third option; how’s that for sophistication?

        1. unacceptable

          we demand unconditional surrender

          1. … molten iron?

            1. in your cheap beer

          2. I suggest you demand in one hand and shit in the other – and then see which one fills up first.

            1. ya mean the one with the big psychic hammer?

        2. Dipshit? Not only are you uncivilized but you have a little, narrow tiny mind.

          1. thanks for the compliment as we say in the hood.

            1. Wamsagongo, I was responding to typical American, not to you. We got out of sequence. I generally agree with your posts but not about your views on collateral damage.

              And while I’m in here I’ll add to my response to typical American that my ancestors and relatives fought every American war from the Revolution to Korea. So this war and this country are my fucking business. These wars are waged with my money and in my name and I have every fucking right in the world to know important details.

              I have lived on American soil most of my life, I was born here and I would defend the U.S. with my life if it were invaded. But I also lived through Vietnam and have a healthy distrust of the government, its reoccurring foreign wars and its spin.

              1. So this war and this country are my fucking business.

                Didn’t say they weren’t; I wasn’t refering to citizens of this country, but to other countries, their leaders, and their citizens.

                But like I said – the rest of the world can be with us or against us. Or they can be neutral and stay out of it. If they open their mouths, stick their noses in, or otherwise hinder our efforts, their neutrality is going to be suspect, just like it would be regarding some feud “in the hills.” You may well think that view lacks sophistication, but most issues in this world do generally boil down to simple ones. I see no reason to make life more complicated than it needs to be, and the people who do are generally con-artists of one kind or another looking for a consulting fee or its equivalent. The admonishment of small or narrow-mindedness is often merely the wail of such who cannot manage to deceive their mark with all that “nuance” and other fancy synonyms for bullshit.

                1. Relationships and issues, as well as allegiances are complex and often shifting. People can agree with some of your position, but not all of it.
                  Countries that are ostensibly our allies, nevertheless, spy on us. Enemies necome friends, friends become enemies. You don’t have to make life complicated, it already is.

                  My belief is the opposite of yours, I think it’s the con artists and spinners who want to keep all questions narrowly focused so that – to them at least – there is only one right answer- their answer

                  To the spinners it is not important whether people killed by the U.S, military were legitimate targets or unarmed civilians. But it is mportant to the people in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as much of the rest of the world who watches us to see if our walk matches our talk.

                  In the end, it’s the hears and minds
                  we win that determine the outcome of these kinds of wars , military force won’t do it. Terrorists can set up anywhere on the planet Our actions have a lot to do with who welcomes them.

                  The strident “with us or agin us” doesn’t get us the respect we need. If you want respect, you need to give respect, that is just as true for natios as it is for people. You can bully people for a while, but in the end it bites you.

              2. got a little tangled in the thread oopsie

                collateral damage occurs all the time and at many levels.

                progressives are sick of the wars and we’re going to stop them.

                1. like your posts

                2. I hope the wars do stop. At its purest and best this country is not a war machine, unfortunately we have lost our way believing that we can only be safe by ruthlessly remodeling other countries into our image.

                  I hope none of the Afghans identified in the War Diaries meet the ugly ends that they very well could meet, that’s who I was specifically referring to. I don’t find collateral damage acceptable on any level.

                  1. I agree the wars need to stop. But how do we do that responsibly?

                    1. kmon quit jiving.

                      when has THIS stupid bloody little war ever been about “responsibly”?

                      your side created a war by acting irresponsibly …. those immoral actions have made you the victim that you now know yourself to be. heavy

                      you want “responsible” turn out the lights go home and wait for the knock on your door.

                    2. As I have said we have a responsibility to the Afghan people since we essentially put them there. It is clear that you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. (You may also have a reading comprehension problem.) Sadly most people in America suffer from the same problem. A whole generation has been brought to be reactionary revolutionaries. It’s like all the Irish Americans who supported the IRA and the “troubles” but had never set foot in Ireland or actually had any idea what it was about. Everything they knew was through the echo chamber of their prefered media outlet. Guess what wikileaks is an echo chamber as well.

                    3. essentially = major bullshit

  28. I’m sorry, but anyone claiming that the New York Times is an objective, non-activist, investigative newspaper, or allows such an opinion to go unchallenged as if factual,
    has rendered himself completely without credibility. The New York Times is as statist liberal as Fox News is neocon, with merely a few “red herring” exceptions like libertarian Judge Napolitano at Fox and some neocon columnist at NYT.
    It has made any other opinion about Assange and WikiLeaks hypocritical at best and mendacious at worst.
    Furthermore, i find it hilarious how people are using Afghans, who the American army never asked for permission before bombing their country, as a reason to attack WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks also released info about Americans shooting the crap out of people on the ground from a chopper. Is that what Afghans and Iraqi’s are asking for too?
    Why don’t you ask the Afghans whose weddings are bombed and children killed if they appreciate America’s help against the Taliban?
    Because that would be inconvenient?
    Libertarians my ass.
    And treason? Treason to what? A country that sticks his nose in other people’s business without asking first? That is responsible for more deaths during a “liberating” war than there were under the original dictator(s)? That has killed a multitude of innocent victims compared to the 3000 innocents on 9/11 that served as the original excuse for these wars?
    A country that basically armed and trained Bin Laden, helped Saddam Hussein, helped the Taliban get into power, and now “must accept as collateral damage” the deaths of hundreds thousands in getting rid of people that are there because of THEM in the first place?
    And releasing info about such a country would be “treason”?
    Treason in that sense (because it will invariably be used with every military adventure that has nothing to do with defending America’s borders) is as meaningless as an accusation of treason against Oscar Schindler by some SS-officer.
    Only to one without morality, to whom the meaningless, collectivist concept of a “state” is more important than the individual people comprising it.

    1. yes.

      like it or not the nytimes is the paper of record and is very influential.

      read some of the commentary on the editorials.

      1. wamsagongo|8.7.10 @ 1:13PM|#
        “…the nytimes […] is very influential.”

        Especially among those who think it’s influential.
        Among others, not so much.

        1. how many millions of people read the new york times daily?

          you get your news from usa today?

          1. wamsagongo|8.7.10 @ 8:36PM|#
            “how many millions of people read the new york times daily?”

            Um, far fewer than get their ‘news’ from Limbaugh, so I presume you think he’s got it right?

            1. progressives love rush limbaugh and thoroughly enjoy him for about two minutes a month.

              cheap shot warning: that was a lot of oxycontin

              i see him as a profound stand up comedian with a hint of mint in his julep.

              1. And you are a lot of oxymoron – heavy emphasis on moron.

                1. tickle tickle

      2. Especially among those who are vapid windbags. Is that why the NY Time’s sales have been plummeting?

        1. plummeting sales have a lot to do with progressives like wikileaks providing real info and not warmed over barf.

          1. Maybe we agree on more than I thought. NY Times is a mass producer of warmed overbarf. Wikileaks is not actually providing any type of meaningful journalism though. They have just posted them for the world to see. What would have been more impressive would be to write a series on the supposed attrocities and illegal activities that reportedly occuring. But they didn’t do that. That would have required responsibility and a lot of work. So they just did something that would get them the most media attention. This did not contribute to society in any positive way.

            1. one of the reasons that wikileaks permitted nytimes to do a report is that wl.org felt that was the best way to convey the information, very pragmatic.

              again, the most interesting aspect of all this is here we are in a somewhat altered universe.

              heh heh

      3. What about…

        1. no excuse me i got that wrong

          it was molten CRISCO

  29. But if Assange can’t or won’t be tried for treason, how about if the tax, medical, work and school records plus any other squalid details about Assange, his associates, and their families were leaked to the internet?

    Maybe someone innocent might be hurt in the process, but as Assange points out, “we should actually ignore people that say something might happen or could happen.” And if anything did happen, well, that would just be “collateral damage,” as Assange also says.

    The public has the right to know everything about Assange and Wikileaks!

    1. Ha! Bravo!

    2. What about things that WILL happen? Should those be ignored?

      1. u got a ouija board?

        1. What happens when an informer is discovered in the crime world? They aren’t asked politely to stop. The Taliban hung a 7 year old for talking to Americans before Wikileaks. What do you think they plan to do now? You are beeing willfully ignorant.

          1. what happens when your side surrenders?

            1. the burning pools…

              1. evocative of your home town?

          2. US supports Taliban

            so what does that make George Bush?

            1. grandson of prescott who was indicted for aiding the nazis

            2. Not terribly revolutionary news there hoss. As for the implication that he is a traitor nice try. We weren’t at war with the Taliban at the time. It shows us that we need to be more careful who we are dealing with. I am more in fafvor of Jeffersonian foreign policy but I am not sure that is practical.

    3. sez who?

      1. of the molten iron?

        1. radio magnetic too

  30. Assange might think he is a whistleblower, but he seems to have quite a low regard for accuracy and relevance. He reminds me of the scene from the movie The Fourth Protocol in which a man is caught in Britain passing secrets to a South African diplomat. When the Brit is confronted with evidence of his espionage, he states that he was doing so out of an opposition to communism and that he saw himself as a greater patriot than the men who have uncovered his activities. The men then show him evidence from the government of South Africa indicating that the particular diplomat he has been passing secrets to is suspected of being in the employ of the KGB. Everything the Brit had passed to this diplomat had been going straight to the Soviet Union.

    Similarly, Assange (and Bradley Manning) assume a level of understanding that they don’t really have. The video of the Apache pilots firing on insurgents is one example of an item which when viewed without contextual information about the overall situation in which it occurs, seems damning. However, upon revelation of the complete picture, the most one could say is that pilots who voices were recorded had a morbid sense of humor – and nothing more. I suspect the same is true of the other material stolen by certain government employees and given to Wikileaks.

    Assange is much like the Brit character in the movie: A sophomoric imbecile who pretends an unrealistic level of understanding and whose actions are harmful to real men and women out there trying in good faith to carry out their legitimate duties.

    1. Are you referring to the video “Collateral Murder” in which unarmed civilians, including two Reuter’s employees and two children, were shot? Many died, including the father of the two children, who had stopped his van in order to render assistance to another shooting victim.

      Is this the video? Because if it is, then you are the one with the contextual issues – or maybe it is a soul that you lack. If you think that mowing down whomever happens to be in your scope using the flimsiest of justifications is acting in “good faith” then I doubt that you have one.

      Which is a much bigger character flaw than any of Julian Assange’s.

      1. There’s 30 minutes missing from their “full” video, including that van dropping off armed men.

        And those men weren’t unarmed.

        http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

        Jawa report has done a good job exposing the amount of manipulation Wikileaks has done to the original video.

        1. So he’s neither a journalist nor an activist. He’s a propagandist.

        2. so editing is only permitted by people you like?

          1. What…

            1. edi ting

        3. The children were armed insurgents?
          The Reuter’s cameramen were armed insurgents? And if being armed makes you an potential insurgent, they could probably be justified in killing most of my neighbors. But you can have guns here, just not in a war zone, even if it is your own country, even if you fear for your life (with apparent good reason).

      2. Look again. They are clearly armed.

        1. that was a cucumber

          1. Big ass cucumber

            1. they grow huge cucumbers in the mountain air.

      3. The only collateral murder in that video was of the insurgents using children as human shields. The were clearly setting up to attack a US convoy. The Reuter’s employees were accompanying them for some good footage of Americans getting killed and, instead, they got footage of getting killed. Seems fair to me.

        1. remeber we are the occupiers of a foreign land.

          1. wamsagongo|8.7.10 @ 8:43PM|#
            “remeber we are the occupiers of a foreign land.”

            Yeah, and purple, too. Remember purple.
            Are you drunk?

            1. are you drunk on blood?

              1. ABOUT….

                1. time molten

  31. “…Assange posted 91,000 documents online having, by his own admission, read only 2,000 of them carefully…”

    I don’t think the guy is either of the two. He was handed a pile of stuff, of which he admits he has limited knowledge, and he stuck it on the web.
    And went on tour…

    1. incorrect

      while he may have looked at only 2000 douments, he has many functions, his volunteer staff carefully vetted all 91,000 docs.

      i believe he sat in on the sifting process after that.

      1. wamsagongo|8.7.10 @ 8:45PM|#
        “i believe he sat in on the sifting process after that.”

        Goody for you. Got evidence?
        I believe you’re an ignorant turd, and I’ve got evidence.

        1. yes i do

          google – ted julian assange – and watch the video

          1. THE BURNING….

            1. cross of molten gold

  32. as ringo recently said on his seventieth birthday:

    love and peace

    or was it peace and love?

  33. Michael, You are correct – there is more to journalism than just publishing documents. But You neatly avoid the fact that Wikileaks team has done more than publishing documents.

    The tenor of Your post makes me wonder if You would recognise real journalism (which this is) if it bit You in the ass (which, judging by this emission, it has).

    For Example:

    White House Won’t Protect Afghan Sources, Won’t Rule Out Killing Assange
    -Capturing Bin Laden Takes Back Seat to Fighting WikiLeaks

    Last Thursday I thought I’d ask the White House a simple question. Is it more important to capture Osama Bin Laden, or to detain and “question” (under the PATRIOT Act, we all know what that can mean.) Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

    I thought this was a no brainer. How wrong, I suppose, I was. …

    For the full post, see my blog Scribal Thrum, at dredeyedick.wordpress.com.

    Short Link: http://bit.ly/cANjMw

    … and yesterday’s disgraceful pentagon press briefing confirms Obama’s stance: The United States government will NOT act to protect it’s Aghan Friends and Sources, if it means admitting the Executive Branch no longer controls declassification. Which, in this important case, it doesn’t.

    Here’s my tweet to Gibbs, today, Aug 6 2010:
    :Sure wish You’d give answers.WH won’t protect Afghan Sources?Won’t say You WON’T murder Assange?

    It’s the WH failing to take killing Assange off the table that really really bothers me. As it should any Citizen who feels that governments should not go around killing People with whom it disagrees.

    Cheers,
    -dcm 😐

  34. progressives are saying that as long as the u.s. continues to kill, lie, cheat and steal, we will oppose the policies and actions in every way we can.

    and we are affective aintwe?

    jesus once said:

    know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

    1. Progressives are writing those policies.

        1. Have you somehow seperated yourself from reality or are from a parallel reality. President Obama is a self proclaimed Progressive. He is directing this war. These are things that cannot be denied.

          1. call it parallel reality

            obama is neither socialist or progressive but i root for him anyway.

            1. POOLS OF….

              1. molten salty tears

    2. and we are affective aintwe?

      RC’z law frosted with unintentional self-inflicted irony. Okay, that makes up for all the noise this dumbass has injected into this thread.

      1. happiness is a warm gun

        1. molten iron?

          1. nanothermite

            1. How is that different from the microthermite? The mini thermite? Or the jumbo thermite? (I’m just kidding on that last one – I know how it is different!)

              1. email physicist steven e jones and get back to me.

                thanks

    3. I am trying to decide if this guy is a sock puppet or if god loved him sooo much that He gave him an extra chromosome.

      1. twas the aliens and their cute smiles

        1. Molten?

          1. molten iron is a by-product of nanothermite on steel.

  35. “and we are affective aintwe?”

    No way this is real.

      1. Iron?

        1. nanothermite?

  36. You don’t think it’s possible for someone to be that fucking stupid? Just ask yourself who is President!!!

    1. lincoln’s vision.

  37. I think the real question is whether Assange is an enemy of the US or not. By releasing the names of Afghani who assisted us, Assange has both reduced our combat effectiveness as well as arranged for our allies to be killed. How can he not be our enemy? And, if he is our enemy, shall we deal with him in the same way as we deal with AQ?

    1. he’s your wrongly perceived enemy.

      that’s the way it is.

      1. Oh so his perception is wrong?

        You kill me. Keep it up I am finding this wildly entertaining.

        1. YOUR perception meathead

            1. turns out that rummie was hiding in the pent broom closet with montague.

              1. heh gross.

                1. check out gen winfield montague’s strange story on that fateful 9/11 morn.

                  a few simple google inquiries and you’re down the rabbit hole into wonderland.

                  1. trolly trolly trolly trolly… TROLTEN!!

      2. I am willing to bet that Assange thinks of America as the enemy.

        Wamsagongo cannot be real. There is no way anyone can be so obtuse unless it was intentional.

        1. no

          he thinks that the enemy is anyone in power who consistently lies to the people.

        2. you are right good sir

          wamsagongo isn’t my real name

            1. find out where gen montague was from 8:30 am to 10 am on that fateful morn.

    2. Of course he is, but he can count on the “evil” US not retaliating.
      I expect others will hunt him down eventualy, and will join other martyrs like Che.

      1. there’s way too many of us. you need to take care bubba.

  38. Okay, so I did a quick survey of the ground breaking proof of malicious malfeasance. What a joke, SALUTE reports, Detainee transfers (of course in the lib mind the fact that we take combatants off the battlefield is probably damning in and of itself) and Troops In Contact reporting does not constitute proof of anything other than the fact that the Army generates a lot of paperwork and reports. Still sifting through trying to find the damning evidence of war crimes.

    1. what do you actually know about the lib mind other than your preconceived strawman?

      1. I’ll tell you when you address the substance of my argument, where is the damning evidence at, or hell any of the arguments that you have thrown drum circle chant slogans at. Oh wait found this report detailing an atrocity:

        CATA Trip log for 15, July 2007

        Panjshir, Valley
        At 0800 hours CATA conducted an HA drop at the governor''s office: Please review the list below:
        1. Beans, 500 bags
        2. Blankets, 300 ea
        3. First Aid Kit, 510 kits
        4. Cooking Oil, 150 bottles
        5. Rice, 500 bags
        6. Sugar, 500 bags

        Omaris
        The village elder from Omaris stopped at the COMM site this morning for the pick of 300 gabions. Request for 1,000 bags of cement was also approved for the village.
        The village elder also received 24 wheel barrels'' from the Governor.

        Next 24 hours, recon in the Tawakh valley

        Prep for (girls) school drop in the Anaba district (300 PAX) at grid 42SWE 36600 01130

        The horror! Of course when you read the intro page to the reporting you are treated to this gem: “The field units also need to expect questions from higher up or disciplinary measures for events recorded in the messages, so they will tend to gloss over violations of rules of engagement and other problematic behavior; the reports are often detailed when discussing actions or interactions by enemy forces.”

        So basically, if there is actual reporting that says “Conducted Operation Mei Lei II” you can point and shout, “butchers!” and if it does not then you can jump around and scream, “coverup!” Very convenient.

        1. nervous in the servous holmes

          1. Still oh-fer on addressing any actual points chief. You are clearly nothing but a base provocateur, I am going to ignore you as such.

          2. would you help your bud crisco he’s having a meltdown?

            not sure what your point or question was back yonder. ‘scuse your humble servant ah so.

        2. good sir

          if you had read the thread you will understand that imhfo the info in the files isn’t that important.

          otoh

          wikileaks is

          1. Wikileaks is only as important as the data they provide. If they are releasing nothing of note then they they are irrelevant. So you believe that Wikileaks is not important

            1. don’t you wish

              1. All I did is follow your logic. I don’t think there is that much in the documents. Wikileaks didn’t review them effectively and though they were far more than they were. This has come back to bite them in the ass. There isn’t any evidence of rampant illegal activity but there is information that when released endangers CF in Afghanistan and Afghans themselves. So Bravo Julian Assange, you just exposed the world to the fact that you are an asshole.

            2. are you more or less important than the data you provide?

              1. If your entire existence is to provide information then you are only as relevant as the information you provide.

                1. and what of poetry or the faces in the clouds blowing kisses?

                  just askin

                2. do you enjoy scratching your balls?

                  is it permitted?

                  1. God I hope so.

                    1. according to the leaked man docs ball scratching is not permitted as it is a sign of humanity (and weakness) which of course is a lot like the for want of a nail horsehoe lost war fuck napolean. ya unnerstan

                    2. No I don’t actually. I think we have sunk to a level of inannity that no ones else here should be subjected to.

      2. Uh, pretty sure we’re getting an education about the lib “mind”, and it’s not pretty.

        1. Yes, it’s an oxymoron.

          1. we require your unconditional surrender

            1. LIKE YOUR UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE FILLING UP YOU. MANY TIMES.

              1. fig newmann

        2. diamond sharp hard edges

          the sweet scent of lilac

    2. Shoeless Chris|8.7.10 @ 8:26PM|#
      ‘…Still sifting through trying to find the damning evidence of war crimes.’

      Just a guess, but I’ll bet the worst you find is evidence of some trigger-happy Captain who did something embarrassing. And got caught.

      1. Yeah probably so.

        1. hey no worries you’re in the clear …. so far

          1. but your jaxson brother might not

  39. Edgar Winter? Visually, he makes me think of David Spade.

    1. he looks like a very courageous man.

      1. To those who think the nyt is influential.

        1. true the times is only influential if you actually take the time read it and perhaps make a comment in an editorial or something — where thousands of thoughtful people read and respond.

          1. wamsagongo|8.8.10 @ 3:49AM|#
            “true the times is only influential if you’re an ignoramus”
            FIFY

            1. my team your team

              the challenge:

              sunday noo yawk times crossword puzzle

              at dawn

              b dear

              1. wamsagongo|8.9.10 @ 1:44PM|#
                “my team your team
                the challenge:
                sunday noo yawk times crossword puzzle”

                Turing test fail.

                1. hit the starter

  40. fun

    livenin it up the jiven

    gitchie gitchie

    1. stupid stupid

      1. that’s with two d’s.

          1. my first fan

            garsharooskies

  41. One is responsible for the reasonable
    consequences of one’s actions, in this
    case, the deaths of Afghani allies of
    the US. It is no defense that Assange
    did not know their names were in the
    documents, because he did not look.

    1. they did look and carefully.

  42. He is a traitor and a criminal.

    1. got proof

      1. got iron?

        1. Molten Iron

          1. in your toolbag

  43. LOL I love how you all have become pro-afghan war now that they’ve found millions in mineral wealth to be mined by the multi-nationals (and by afghan laborers making 10 cents a day). Way to hold on to your principles!

    1. Oh Absolutely. Those of us on this thread are definitely going to get a piece of that action. I can see it now, driving along the main drag in Kabul in my Rolls Royce, bought and paid for by the sweat of Afghan backs in the mineral mines.

      1. or as some inc pimp

        1. All I do was talk shit and swallow spit.

          1. you are over-qualified

            1. moly moly moly mmmmmmmm MOLTEN!!!!

              1. Rosebudd. Thats two “D”s for a a double dose of this Pimpin’

                1. help your buddy crisco

                  he’s been eating military rations too long

    2. I had not heard that there was a mineral find. If so that is good for Afghanistan. What idiots like yourself fail (or refuse) to understand is that 10 cents a day, while those wages are not getting workers rich, they are providing a family with which to feed and clothe themselves. It is a vast improvement over subsistence farming.

      Although, there is good money to be made burying 122mm artillery shells on roadsides too.

      1. in the sixties afghani hash was well appreciated worldwide.

        remember that progressive time before the usual colonial murderousness?

          1. not only that but he follows me around and goes woof when i say so.

            1. Have some molten iron… it’s full of trolly goodness!!

              1. you roll it

                i’ll toke it

                after u

    3. LOL I love how you all have become pro-afghan war now that they’ve found millions in mineral wealth

      Can’t speak for anyone else here, but I’ve been pro Afghan War from day one. I just think we should have done what we went in there to do and then gotten the hell out. We should have gotten the Taliban AND Osama bin Lunatic even if it meant crossing the border with Pakistan. And if Pakistan didn’t like it, then tough shit. The US is pussy fucking around just like it did in Viet Nam and we’ll probably get about the same ending…unfortunately.

      1. learn anything from history?

          1. now read the rest

            good boy boff0

  44. I think we should ask for Wikileaks to return all the classified material, or put a price on the head of the editor.

    1. See my above post… there really is not much to see here. Most of the ground breaking journalism involves puked up administrative/operations reporting. I am looking for something that would lead to the mass graves, so far no luck. Of course you can derive operational patterns and what not from all of this stuff. So, yeah this jackass showed the world (and the Taliban) how we do business.. putting the folks serving over there more in harms way.

    2. your surrender will be unconditional

      1. AND WHAT DOES IT SPELL!?!?!??

        1. j-a-i-l

  45. If this bonehead would have taken the time to take a look at the data he received and put together a thoughtful, objective (objectivity is probably a bridge too far for this asshat) analysis of the information.

    If there is evidence of war crimes I am all for tracking down those responsible and holding them accountable.

    Not seeing it so far. If anyone has found said reporting. I am not even seeing the reports that give up source names either. If anyone has seen them, please point them out to me. I would like to see what kind of message traffic they are.

    1. we all would.

  46. *If this bonehead would have taken the time to take a look at the data he received and put together a thoughtful, objective (objectivity is probably a bridge too far for this asshat) analysis of the information. I might consider him a journalist.

    1. you are incorrect. wikileaks did a very thorough job.

      1. MOLTEN IRON!!!! YOU FUCKWIT!!!!! Now, what about it? And will you consider renaming yourself from “wamsagongo” to “molten iron”

        1. yes indeed what about it.

          do your research and i will be happy to discuss.

          take care

          1. Molten?

            1. is that nanothermite in your coffee?

          2. I have done my research. I also make a living reading and analyzing traffic like this… and my conclusion is this: Mr. Assange has needlessly increased the danger to American Service members in theater whilst providing no evidence of anything that we did not already know… chiefly, that occasionally the American Military blows up the wrong people. Furthermore, he has engaged in and encouraged a campaign to tilt this information to fit his predetermined conclusion.

            wamsagongo, what is your analysis?

            1. you folks keep missing the point(s).

              your perspective seems to be an inside out view – most heavily biased by the terrible and dangerous situation right now in your face and for your team.

              i look at the situation more as an unemotional outsider trying to understand what’s happening.

              i have gotten interested in wikileaks only in the last month and spent time studying him/them. i came away most favorably impressed by the character – the integrity – of these people. this is what impresses me. this is what is all important to me.

              they are cutting edge technically, light years ahead of u.s. empire. ironic?

              there are thousands of communicators more over the world with the ability to speak truth to power.

              look around and wake up.

              the issue really isn’t about wikileaks or our daily tragic failed war thing.

              one man’s defense is another man’s war crime.

              way past time to shut the war machines down and go home.

              another viet nam? so what. move on.

              git r done

              1. You don’t have a point is what you are saying. You also wish to be be copmpletely uninvolved with the issues that effect you anfd your world. As for cutting edge technology I think you are sadly mistaken. Prior to this large data dump wikileaks was only nominally involved in amateur hacking. Most of the information they posted came from the internet. They just then compiled and categorzed it. The Afghan War Diaries was neither. An Intel Analyst, Bradley Manning, stole it from his office. Assange found out because the kid was bragging about it. The kid then gave it to Assange. Where is this technological superiority. Read about the US Intelligence3 community. I recommend “Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy” By Mark Lowenthal. This book gives a fairly accurate look at how the intelligence community operates. Previousy I posted that Assange left Manning holding the bag. It turns out that he is willing to pay for his private council which elevates my opinion of him, if only slightly.

                1. the war is lost done finished. sorry go home before it is too late for you is a point.

                  open your eyes look around

                  good luck

              2. “i have gotten interested in wikileaks only in the last month and spent time studying him/them. i came away most favorably impressed…”
                Yeah, but you’re an ignorant turd.

                1. wikileaks has over two million files. people do the darndest things.

                  have a lovely day in the pasture.

  47. Hmmm.. I wonder about those burning pools when I try to sleep at night…mmmm molten iron… yummy

  48. doesn’t sound like you wonder about too much beyond your daily blood infusion.

    1. MOLTEN!!

      1. have you seen the sat photos

  49. the most important idea that you knee-jerkers need to get jerkin is that unpleasant embarrassing info on everyone and everything is available online. it’s getting more organized/centralized izall.

    in this case the perception is at least as frightening as certain ugly realities.

    the good news for my team is that the fascists can’t do a damn thing about it.

    buhhh gonngggggg

    1. IRON!!!

    2. Well, guess its okay that more Soldiers and civilians are gonna die, or at least be put in more danger. As long as your team wins.

      1. no no no

        we want the war to end.

        please no more bang bang go home.

        suck it up.

  50. I don’t see how what wikileak leaked is such big news. Anyone who had been following the war carefully could have inferred that elements in the ISI were helping the Taliban all along.

    It was an open secret. There just wasn’t any publicized proof of it.

  51. 3 out of 4 trolls surveyed say they PREFER molten iron… in burning pools!

    1. with a side of nanothermite !!??!!

  52. And yet he still managed to miss the most basic piece of source protection. Don’t reveal names. Assange is an incompetent idiot.

    1. not at all. you’re incorrectly assessing his motives.

      the col won’t be happy.

      1. I’m not assessing motives. I am assessing his actions. Which is far more damning.

        1. who set you up as judge and jury?

          is the verdict in?

          1. Yes it is. Assange will likely face charges. PVT. Mannig sure as hell will.

            1. you must have assange shitting peach pits.

  53. Alright, your views on Assange are well-documented. Now, where do you stand on the issue of MOLTEN IRON!??!

    1. Well I’m glad you asked. I believe molten iron to be very …molten… and made of Iron…that is molten.

      1. the odd thing about swimming molten is the smokeless dew.

    2. MILTON BERLE IN ERLE

  54. “That’s funny,” thought Jill, “wamsadongo never has a second cup of molten iron at home….”

    1. tis permitted on the full moon

  55. Apparently someone already broke into the encrypted files that are posted. Turns out they directions for creating molten iron.

    1. takes a couple of months of week-end work to set the charges on the girders

      voila

      free fall implosion

      pools of molten paper clips

      and an inexplicable amount of nanothermite FOUND/SIGNED/SEALED/DELIVERED $$$$$$$$ in the dust.

  56. In an effort to push this FUCKING thread of UTTER DESPAIR to the 500 mark, I offer the following (sung to the tune of “Mack the Knife”….

    “Oh, that iron is so molten,
    And wamsadongo is so trite…

    1. fancy gloves oooooooooooooo

      hiding the traces of red

  57. “Just been thread jacked, by this dickhead…
    and driven everyone out of sight..”

  58. Sweet Bautiful Jesus. You have the voice of an angel. I am seeing an image of an unicorn.

    1. a unicorn in uniform whodathunk

  59. And that iron is so molten
    a buzzing troll right near your head”

  60. Rhymin and stealin

  61. “Fancy strawmen and non-sequiturs, so that troll he always, always gets fed”

  62. “Now on this thread here, uh huh,
    Sunday morning don’t you know
    Moonbat ravings, just ooozing life”

    1. Correction:
      “moonbat ravings, causin strife”

  63. Where are the fly honeys at. We need a chorus.

  64. CORRECTION:
    “Moonbat ravings, causing strife”

  65. CORRECTION:
    “Moonbat ravings, causing strife”

  66. Correction:
    “Moonbat ravings, causing strife”

  67. Correction:
    “Moonbat ravings, causin’ strife”

  68. You can’t spam block me!!! We are getting to 500 GODDAMNIT!!
    Now, correction:
    “moonbat ravings, causin’ strife”

    1. cause mac

      heeeeeze

      baaaaaaaaack iiiinnnnnn

      towwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

      one more time

      o loooooook out

  69. “So much free time that he’s a truther..
    Could be little trolly needs a life?”

  70. So close… yet running out of steam… must make 500 comments

    1. you got a quota?

  71. Fantastic an entire thread summed up in song.

  72. How many threads ever make it to 500?

    1. not many in this low life joint

  73. I do offer my deepest apologies to all here. I knowingly and repeatedly fed the troll. I throw myself at the mercy of the court.

    1. get your platoon to sing a round of kumbaya

  74. I think we are all guilty. We couldn’t help it.

    1. In looking over the thread, we see responses such as:
      wamsagongo|8.8.10 @ 3:50AM|#
      “that’s with two d’s.”

      Looks like this was a beta run of a not-quite-ready-for-prime-time Turing Test program.
      Lou the anonymity bot does better sometimes, but not as consistently. Whoever is running this bot is close, but…

      1. hey thanks i was running a sim

    2. how easy the addictions when you wear starch!?

    3. a little wiggle to the bait and hoooked

  75. Over 500 comments, but with an asterisk.

    1. Kinda cheating I suppose. Invalidated through troll feeding.

  76. journalist or activist?

    Neither.

    He’s a criminal.

    1. see ya

      1. Turing Test fail.

    2. what is the sound of one hand napping?

  77. He’s neither a journalist, nor an activist. He’s putting people’s lives at risk. He’s an idiot, and self-centered.

  78. do libertarians ever post to the site? or just flag lapel pin wearing neocons (and the odd “progressive” troll)

    1. who u callin odd buster?

  79. You’re denigrating Assange and Wikileaks because they have fewer scoops than the ENTIRE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? That is an absurd point of comparison. It may be so, but it is also the truth that both Assange and Wikileaks have more, and bigger, scoops than Reason Magazine has accomplished in its entire existance, or that its senior editor Michael Moynihan has thus far achieved. Reason is far from alone: many working journalists and existing journals share that boat. It is only when you compare Assange’s accomplishments with an entire industry that they fall short.

    1. Stan Wright|8.9.10 @ 8:45PM|#
      “You’re denigrating Assange and Wikileaks because they have fewer scoops than the ENTIRE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?…”
      Uh, no.
      It’s because he (and it) are propagandists.

      1. takes one to know when to say one

    2. What scoops? Name a single scoop that was of note. Don’t bring up the helicopter because that one has already been debinked. No one has gone to jail due to the scoops. Unless of course you count Pvt. Manning.

      1. quit marching in small squares

  80. you’re welcome

  81. I encountered Mr. Assange back when he went by the hacker handle Pr0ff. He was a piece of work back then, and I’d be hard pressed to believe he’s much different now. After casually mentioning his old hacker handle in front of a friend recently, I was regaled with tales of how my friend’s family was threatened by him “back in the day.”

    I’m all for learning from the mistakes of our country/administration/military, but the ends don’t justify the means, and if Mr. Assange is the means, I am very very wary of the path down which we’re treading.

    1. bullshit

      1. So now you doubt a primary source. You are very gullible if you are willing to only listen to Media outlets.

        1. when is an encounter a primary source?

          reread the manual

  82. It does my heart good to hear all this WHINING about Assange. Who gives a flying flip whether he calls himself a “journalist” or not? The man is exposing machinations that need to be exposed, and is doing so at considerable personal risk. That makes him the classic definition of “hero”. Thank you, Julian Assange!

    1. Look at the data. NO machinations have been exposed.

    2. “journalist or activist” obvious talking point straight out of a journ-o-list type memo from the military industrial complex…

      How about this? is the NYT and Washington Post propaganda or news? Of course it is propaganda or I wouldn’t have to remind the a-holes here that the US government supported the Taliban and helped keep them in power

      1. in the old imperial game of both sides against the middle and verse vicea

      2. No shit SHerlock. I think it is fairly common knowledge that the US has screwed up its foreign policy by supporting Assholes. No conspiracy that the Government for the most part is full of morons.

        1. the last time our country was loved was the day before the jfk murder.

  83. then why are you all acting like a bunch of nervous nellies?

  84. really the two wars have conflated into the war that never ends.

    no more we say.

  85. 9/11 was an inside job.

    and o do we have facts.

  86. What part of libertarianism allows the state to keep secrets from its citizens. How could a well informed citizenry exist if the state is morally justified in lying to its own citizens. The war is a fraudulent joke and WikiLeaks has expossed it as such, eventhough we already knew it. It is a socialist notion that the state and its bureaucrats know more than we do about what is good for us and need to mislead us into following our own class interests. Moynihan is a statist and a defender of tyranny. This article should have been in newsweek or US News and World Report, rather than in reason. Neoconservative garbage.

    1. Well the easy answer to this is that every US citizen does not love America. In fact you might say they are loyal to other countries. If the Intel community were to operate with an open book there would be no defense againt foreign agents. We would have no intel and be incredibly vulnerable. They could then easily hijack our economy, cripple our military, and control our country. So it is a tough balance. What should be common knowledge and what should be secret. I actually sent an email to NSA and requested info on Afghanistan. After a long process and 60 bucks out of pocket they actually gave me info that they declassified. They said it fell under the freedom of information act. Its kind of fun. SHould we keep any secrets in an interest of national security?

      1. mommie mommie

        there’s FOREIGN AGENTS in my soup.

        no no noooooooooooo anything but fa

  87. Wikileaks doesn’t put peoples lives in danger. The idiots do it themselves when they conspire and commit murders, acts of violence and conspiracy.

    1. US supports Taliban

      It is amazing that those who are here screaming about how dangerous the Taliban is have no problem ignoring the fact that the US governemnt helped keep the Taliban in power…when do you think the US government stopped supporting the Taliban?

      1. Where is the proof of these “murders”. I love all you reactionary revolutionaries who see conspiracies everywhere. No matter how much evidence to the contrary you still see only what you want to see. You think a few articles on the internet are the gospel. As I have said many times stay away from the media. Go out into the world and talk to people who have first had knowledge. Learn through your own experience not some hack journalist who has his own axe to grind. That includes Assange. Also why exactly do you think somehow your judgement on an informant in Afghanistan is more superior than thge informant’s judgement who has to actually pay the consequences. Arm Chair revolutiinaries are pathetic.

  88. I never heard an announcement saying they stopped supporting them…they may still support them in various ways.

    Whatever keeps the war going right? it is hard to get the military budget as high as they planned in the Project For A New American Century(PNAC documents)…unless the public convinced that we need a big long war…and it is clear they wanted to acheive the goals layed out int he PNAC documents…therefore…

  89. Uh, well the US government is responsible for EVERY death that wouldn’t have occurred had we NOT been there. If someone gets killed because of the “leaks” it is still the gubmints fault for being there in the first place. Pretty simple logic, but the statists here simply don’t have as much brain power to comprehend such issues.

    In other words. If you don’t want to die in Afghanistan; don’t go there you flipping morons! If you are an Afghani, then don’t conspire with the occupiers. more simple logic.

    When will people learn from history: “to be an “enemy” of the US is bad, but to be its “ally” is worse”

    Sooooo, all of you state worshipers can go pound sand.

  90. challenge to reason (mag) and all comers dimskies welcome.

    9/11 was an inside job.

    whydoncha set up a space and we can have at it?

    little ol me will take on all challengers. of course a little help from my friends is always appreciated.

    WADDYA SAY HUH HUH GOT BALLS !?

    shot across your low lying bow

    a fact fer yerz:

    david ray griffin and the 9/11 truth movement were nominated for the nobel peace prize in 2008.

    nice

    1. But did they win. Lots of retards are nominated. As for an asshole who challenges people to a rumble after plenty of cute little love and peace posts I have no time. Also it is a long trip for me. Afghanistan is a far from whereever you want to meet up.

        1. you could check into the molten iron thing. could take you as long as an hour. on your cozy computer in cozy afghanistan we are as one team.

  91. So where is the mass kill off of informants? Either the informants don’t exist, the informants aren’t in danger, or the informants are actually Taliban double agents. Or perhaps the informants were just fingering random Afghanis for drone bombing, which would make figuring out who the bogus informant is impossible.

    1. While those are all possible scenarios do think the Taliban is going to announce when they have killed their informants. The military is going to be even more close hold with their information. Likely we will never know nor should we. What difference does it matter if we do know is our business? However seeing as how the Taliban killed a7 year old kid for talking to the Americans I think they will make good on the threat they have already made to go through the files and deal with informants. Hey if no one gets killed then that is fantastic. That will make this whole thing a non event. The informants’ info was the only information of note. So this is a lose lose for everyone.

      1. your a sad sack caught between a rock and hard place.

        1. Resort to whatever insults you want. But your position loses when it is measured with reason and logic.

          1. how many times have you mentioned the issue of answering legit questions and avoided mine?

            tell us about the POOLS of molten iron in the sub-basements of the wtc’s. but you won’t because the truth will make you puke.

            let’s hold your hand and make it easy for you.

            why don’t you look up wtc heroes fireman lou cacchioli and janitor william rodgriguez. find out why they walked out on the 9/11 commission.

            sifting the data is your intgelligence game.

            how do you explain the nano-thermite found in the wtc dust? please debunk

            any of you gutless wonders out there?

            1. kmon gutless wonders

              step up

              think

              1. Now if you invalidate that by saying it is a fake or whatever you want, then all such sites and papers are invalid for the same reasons. Bottom line it doesn’t matter.

              2. thanks went to the site

                the first thing i saw was a collapsed wtc picture. looks real but have never heard that dumb argument made before and guess what i know a lot.

                and then these words at the top:

                “One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.”

                twisted false misdirected

                what we say first are two things:

                observe the near free fall implosion

                how do u explain the many pellets of nanothermite found in the wtc dust?

                and then we say: did you know that molten iron is the by-product of a nanothermite reaction on steel melting at very high temps.

                izwotwesay

                1. Much of what you know you learned from the internet none from personal experience.
                  As I said invalidate one we have to invalidate them all. First rule of a conspiracy is that risk of compromise is directly related to the amount of people involved. Easy to pull something off with a few people. But when you have multiple agencies and personnel involved (some of whome would love to reveal this type of thing) some one is going to screw up and spill the beans. So in the end there are to many people and to much going on. Something is going to fail. It is to complex and unlikely. Occam’s razor and all.

                  1. is that the best lame argument you can provide.

                    let me tell you something: many people have come forward.

                    as you can imagine there’s a lot of mojo on this one. too many powerful people with too much to lose.

                    refute my facts neocon chickenhawk.

                  2. you got me on that one. i wasn’t there.

                2. more did a quickie

                  there’s a fifty second SILENT video showing some wtc fireman around some kind of wtc glowing metal fire.

                  the video caption says “molten steel at ground zero”

                  getting hahaha funny molten IRON but most of it burned for weeks in the – sub-basements- of the three wtc’s.

                  the site was pure neocon hack job you’d be happy to know. so keep spinning. or better yet find something decent.

              3. so you linked to a website a shitty one at that.

                so answer my questions u fake.

        2. the taliban don’t have enough people who speak the lingo.

      2. you’d think your side capable of knowing how people die and who they are. especially if the truth makes you look good.

        i mean what else are you snoop guys skilled at? what’s the trillion dollar murderous wet work for, except to measure and sanctify body count?

        yankee go home

  92. For all those who like to posture as if they part of some beautiful under gorund. An underground hwose members are the only one who know the truth. What have you actually done? What 9/11 truth? What atrocities? What benefit or contribution have you ever made to the world? This whole Julian Assange thing has turned out to be a very dry joke. The 9/11 truthers have faded and disappeared after each and everyone of their theories has been debunked and refuted. For every article of “evidence” there are 10 that systematically refute it. One of my favorite theories, the Bush regime actually started some of the most extreme 9/11 truther movements in an attempt to discredit the rest, is still getting air time. The worlds problems are not hidden in some deep dark underground tunnel in DC they are right in front of you. It is the willful ingnorance and lack of personal responsiblity. So well done guys you are ineffectual and insignificant and you are continuing to feed the problem.

    1. nice speech

      you should run for orifice

  93. yes let’s be done with the 9/11 silliness.

    since everything i say has been debunked many times over why don’t you make me look more foolish. take five min right now google something, and score some points for your team which you would enjoy.

    what about that molten iron. real or imagined? u could start there

    1. See above

      1. thanks

        check response

        1. answer the real questions

          or if you must continue to dodge

          i just did; why not tell me something about the site you sent me to jerkorama schmitt?

  94. we are above ground and have no secrets.

    is that a scary thought (potentially)?

  95. nano-penis!?!

  96. i ask you yet again u dodgin sackofartz

    tell me about the molten iron, milton?

    1. The article I linked addresses the molten iron pools. It also addressesa much morelikley reason for their existence. Rather than going on a Quixotic quest for a conspiracy why not look at the failings of th Government and Intelligence agencies to prevent this. IT seems that it was probably through incompetence on their part that this actually happened.Address an actual problem rather than an imagined one.

      1. much bigger than incompetence

        eeeeeeeevil

      2. more likely than what?

        not looking for a conspiracy as you once again conveniently frame

        looking for the official explanation of the pools of moleten iron. ten years later nada

        how foolishly incompetent of you to blame incompetennce!

        but if you must

        with all this incompetence everywhere how can you and your elk possibly justify the insane wars against microfluff moozies!

        1. some attempt at humor was made thru bad spelling errrrrr

  97. I am tired of digging through 700 comments if you want to continue this send me an email.

    1. how convenient you pile of ……

    2. i do this for the public record

    3. we don’t have to keep searching this.

      talk at the bottom

      simple

      o wait: chickenhawk

  98. where are the other brave soldiers posting here?

    afraid to defend your honor?

  99. okay

    ol toolbag went scurrying

    next?

    1. No actually I gave you an avenue by which you can continue to be shown evidence of your wrong headed ideas (even though there is no hope you would learn anything).

      1. nah you copped out wimp and u know it (which makes this silly game worthwhile).

        what’s there to hide? let’s discuss right here chickenhawk.

        that was molten IRON dimby

        somehow the 9/11 commission never refers to the molten iron.

        must not a been there ay

        got any info on gen winfield montague like i asked way back in the stack several times?

        mr t wimp plug

        1. What exactly is a Mr t wimp plug. And no I haven’t looked into Gen. Montague. I’m sure it is entertaining. The only reason I even devolved into this rediculous truther conversation, which is way off topic and not at all relevant, is because you insisted. If you insist on using this foum to continue this then fine. Just post at the bottom so it is less of a pain in the ass to find.

          1. the pools of molten iron found burning in the sub-basements of all three collapsed wtc’s have been ignored by the govt. 9/11 truth commission hah

            why, good sir were microscopic nanothermite pellets found in the wtc dust? (dikkkhead)

            any of u other fubar’s want a go? ………… can you hear them slither away?

            i don’t want to waste our precious time either.

            the winner’s trophy, white horse, & beautiful gal are mine.

            answer or slink away, lout. u lose.

            – giddyap – and a hiyo silver.

          2. not interested in the truth are you?

            make sure you cover yer ar$e chang.

          3. certainly you have a wimp plug in your t bag for personal emergencies.

            find out why gen montague was mia during the crucial hour and a half. he was supposed to be in charge of the big screen shebang under the pentagon nmcc.

            as for rummie, he with malice aforethought, sat in his office while the nation was officially under attack and did NOTHING. howz aboutdatforstrange?

            1. same with the prez. as you well know, he sat and listened to children reading a goat story.

              turns out he didn’t wanna scairt the chilluns iz why he sat like dummi rummie and did NOTHING.

            2. i saw footage of rumsfield carrying a wounded person on a stretcher.

              1. you will notice in the footage that emergency vehicles are seen.

                these vehicles had NOT arrived when rummie claims he was there @ 8:45 am

                so ……. dig deeper.

                1. bad typo

                  make that rummie’s stretcher time @ 9:45 am (hint: seven minutes after pent hit. his office at the opposite end of the worlds biggest bldg big walk in chaos. not possible or sensible unless your lying

                  9:45 am

  100. Ah, forgive me. I thought I was on Reason. Be assured, I would never intrude on a chickenhawk site.

  101. thanks ALL of you for the joyful mental combat.

    peace

  102. first site i came to when i googled: molten iron wtc, quickly said this:

    A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter “Toolie” O’Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were “dripping from the molten steel.”

    A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:

    When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

    It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

    I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.

    1. That has been addressed and explained with ample evidence and logic. There isn’t nao-thermite delivery system that would result in that sort of damage.

      1. Also you would need tons and tons of nanothermite to produce the cuts you seem to think it is responsible for. 4.8 lbs will burn a very small hole in the engine block of a car. Do the math.

        1. hey u could be right.

          but what about the pellets in the dust?

      2. u ain’t spock give it up

      3. what can nanothermite pellets in the dust mean besides imagination?

    2. One of the editors of thei “gibberish” producing publisher actually resigned because this paper was beyonfd gibberish. You have yet to produce any evidence on any of these rediculous points. I have refuted each and everyone. I know you will now ask me about Montague and Rumsfeld’s actions. I am sure they are both incompetent assholes. Which is far more likley than a cloak and dagger conspiracy. Keep posting here if you want everyone of your theories shot down.

      1. Weird it seems to have cut off half of my post. I will try to replicate. There is no known delivery system for Nano Thermite that could have been responsible for the cutting of the WTC pillars. Delivery systems do exist but they show that the ratio of thermite to cutting capacity is quite high. You would need a massive device to cut through just HALF of ONE of the steel pillars.
        On to Prof. Jones I think I failed to point his glaring lack of credibility. He wrote a paper that was the groundswell for this 9/11 truther movement. First off he could not get his paper published in a credible scientific journal. This could have been that they were on the cover up, or isit more likely his paper couldn’t pass peer review. This paper was written about the demolition of two massive buildings. I would think this would be written by someone with a civil engineering degree. Prof. Jones is a physicist who specializes in nuclear and solar energy. Not a guy I would want building a bridge. But he didn’t let the recalcitrance of those publishers stop him he went to Bentham. Bentham is considered the wiki of journals and has been known to publish gibberish and hoax articles. ANd yet one of the editors resigned because Jone’s paper was way below their already abysmal standards.

        1. you need to understand that nano-thermite or no nano there are a hundred other ways to understand the inside job via many other events. this is but one example. I personally know many more and well.

          as to how the process was actually done, i don’t know. that the collapses were controlled demolitions seems self-evident to anyone with eyes.

          lower manhattan has always been crawling with sneaky well armed g-men types. how difficult would it be to plant charges? there were some strange documented goings on in the months preceding.

          without 9/11 the neocon fascists could never have pushed us into the current state of madness. they needed their pearl harbor and so they created one. simple (for our own good u understand)

          did you know that marvin bush was a principal in the security company that ran the wtc’s? coinkiedinkie?

          how do you explain the free fall collapses which clearly defy the laws of physics – ifn u know anything about physics.

          how do you explain the otherwise inexplicable amounts of nanothermite found in the wtc dust? o right we faked it or maybe it was the rooskies.

          yeah fling some dirt at prof jones. good job team. u know nothing about him.

          before you judge the man why don’t you youtube a couple of his lectures and hear him explain things much better than me.

          ya think this retired byu physics professor is capable of identifying stuff thru a microscope or with his trusty flux capacitor? he did and i do.

          does come down to: who are the good guys. steven e jones is a man of MORALITY & INTEGRITY (assange too), with a little effort on your part ……

          no official report mentions the pools of molten iron (which you acknowledge existed!?). why? not important um

          how do you explain the pools of molten iron — shall we call them large pools? hot enough three months later to warm the entire site in freeze as noo yawk january!? try and explain that one.

          have you forgotten wtc heroes lou cacchioli and william rodriguez mentioned aways back? check into their stories and why they both (at different times) walked out in disgust in the middle of their INTERROGATIONS by the (phony- their view) 9/11 commissioners. this is important, if you really want to understand.

          and we haven’t even begun to talk about the most mysterious collapse of all wtc 7 (the last one to fall). STILL no official explanation. !!!???? i do not jest

          but we do have silverstein the owner on tape saying on a pbs broadcast “and then i told them to P U L L-I T (and down came the tower straight down free fall). o later he reshuffles the hem and haw after the major goof.

          see?

      2. according to you “incompetent assholes” somehow rise to the top of the food chain by being incompetent assholes. that’s a lot of excellent humjobs along the way.

        evil is evil conspiratorial or otherwise.

        are you missing your spirituality gene?

  103. 1. without 9/11 the neocon fascists could never have pushed us into the current state of madness. they needed their pearl harbor and so they created one. simple (for our own good u understand)
    Actually they didn’t need 9/11. When US forces pulled out of Iraq the first time Saddam was forced to sign a document which had 12 stipulations. These stipulations ranged from the creation of chemical or biological weapons to human rights violations. Mid-way through President Clinton’s second term all twelve conditions had been violated by Saddam. This gave the US legal grounds to invade Iraq. Therefore they did not need 9/11 to invade. Now I am not saying they didn’t use 9/11 to add impetus I am saying they didn’t need it. I am also saying they didn’t need to create it. Also you seem to forget the USS Cole attack in Yemen. AQ was responsible for this as well why then did the Government not move on Iraq then?

    2. did you know that marvin bush was a principal in the security company that ran the wtc’s? coinkiedinkie?
    Correlation is not causation. But I will indulge you. The conspiracy theorists reference Barbara Bush’s memoir for evidence of Marvin Bush’s complicity:
    “According to its president CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down”. This last statement has been used by some conspiracy theorists to say that the contract “expired” on September 11, 2001. Barbara Bush confirmed this theory in her book ‘Reflections’ also stating 9/11 was the day the contract expired.”
    Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.

    3. how do you explain the free fall collapses which clearly defy the laws of physics – ifn u know anything about physics.
    They actually don’t defy the laws of physics (quite impossible actually). This one is quite simple. When the planes hit they damaged the internal support structure. The fire then began melting and softening the steel girders. After awhile these girders gave and the floor took the path of least resistance which is in the direction of gravity. The weight of the entire building falling on itself increased the momentum with each floor it smashed through. So it wasn’t actually a free fall it was a steady increase of momentum which was arrested less and less by floors below it.

    4. how do you explain the otherwise inexplicable amounts of nanothermite found in the wtc dust? o right we faked it or maybe it was the rooskies.
    In Steven Jones’ PDF “Answers to Objections and Questions”, to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
    “One molecule, described by the EPA’s Erik Swartz, was present at levels “that dwarfed all others”: 1,3-diphenylpropane. “We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done,”
    You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
    “He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.”
    Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.

    5. yeah fling some dirt at prof jones. good job team. u know nothing about him.
    “Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones’ presentations are very disturbing.” D. Allan Firmage
    6. and we haven’t even begun to talk about the most mysterious collapse of all wtc 7 (the last one to fall). STILL no official explanation. !!!???? i do not jest
    Building 7 wasn’t hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.
    7. but we do have silverstein the owner on tape saying on a pbs broadcast “and then i told them to P U L L-I T (and down came the tower straight down free fall). o later he reshuffles the hem and haw after the major goof.
    Silverstein’s comments were taken out of context below is the full statement:
    “I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
    8. have you forgotten wtc heroes lou cacchioli and william rodriguez mentioned aways back? check into their stories and why they both (at different times) walked out in disgust in the middle of their INTERROGATIONS by the (phony- their view) 9/11 commissioners. this is important, if you really want to understand.
    Lou Cacchioli was there on site as these events were transpiring he heard what he thought sounded like two explosions. He also believes that the 9/11 commission twisted his words so it would fit their version of events. He also was disgusted that none of his testimony was in the final report. While I thank you for pointing to this guys story it was something else his testimony is not proof of bombs. Do you think that in a building that a plane had smashed into and was beginning to collapse might possibly have some very large noises and explosive contents of its own? Likely what he heard was the electrical system overloading and blowing its circuits.

  104. wow nice really appreciate this discussion.

    did your support team help or is this on your own? and why is this issue so important to you at this moment? because you’ve been called a wimp? deservedly so thus far. are you are some kinda military intelligence guy. hey cool. and where are all your buddies with the nasty tempers and fangs?

    you never answer the important questions and always deflect but that’s okay. just sayin

    #1 you say neocons didn’t need 9/11. nice opinion got lotsa blather there tastes great … less filling

    yes they did for the all important PUBLIC PERCEPTION surrender agreement among many other reasons. and im not talking about that lying piece of provocative crap called our invasion and occupation of the tragedy called iraq. no justification whatsoever. zeeeeero

    #2 spare me the sonic bonic b.s. we agree, ol marvin bush was around and breathing fur out of his nostrils.

    #3 free fall: the gist is that if you measure the time of collapse from top to bottom there’s that 32 ft per second squared fall law of gravitation which sir isaac fig newman first measured. incidentally the govt has not come out with an official explanation. and you know why.

    your pancake description could not have happened because of the collapse time. use your eyes too they help o nevermind

    #4 again the mud slinging!!? physicist steven e jones an all around man of honor demonstrated scientifically that the hi tek explosive nanothermite was found in the wtc dust particles — PEER REVIEWED. molten iron is nt’s by-product.

    to be continued …….

  105. # 5 you use mr firmage to support my position !! steven e jones findings ARE very disturbing.sheeeesh

    # 6 wtc 7 you haven’t studied the story in any kind of depth. both wtc’s collapsed within their own footprint. look at the footage nimroad tilt schmilt rubbish explosions have been known to hurl steel girders. ta taaa

    # 7 out of context !!!!?????? good job those are the words. what do you think he could possibly mean? blah blah pull it and the building collapses but there’s more because the govt refuses to explain what happened .. they call the evidence inconclusive. er a thought: charges would have had to have been placed weeks in advance. that’s noo yawk baybee when you say pull it to the fire capt after a long day of gruesome death that means one thing: pull fucking it. i am a noo yawka.

    # 8 lou cacchioli “proof of bombs” not going there yet. the short story on lou is that he was a hero that day, saved many peoples lives, put himself in harm’s way and was the last human out of one tower. lou a veteran leader of many dangerous fires was insulted because he was not allowed to testify in public which he requested and was instead interrogated in private and scolded. so he gave them the manhattan finger. yes he saw evidence of bombs but that’s another story. and one of many 9/11 commission subversions of the truth.

    but you forgot william rodriguez janitor wtc hero and the last human to leave the other tower. he walked out on the 9/11 commission for the same reasons as lou.

    his is a fascinating story which he shares with audiences and can be seen on youtube. first he heard, saw and survived bombs in the deep basements …… how would he know you might ask? look it up

    there are many credible eye witness reports of detonations, including vet firemen and police. there are some videos that seem to prove as well but personally not sure of the videos.

    1. Actually there are NO credible reports their is a lot of speculation. For isntance Lou himself said he HEARD bombs not that he SAW bombs. As for Rumsfield his reaction was due to the fact that he was responsible. It was his policies and direction that told th intel community to stop bringing this attack up. That is not because it was his attack he planned, it was because the possibility of a large scale terrorist attack did not fit his preconceived notions. He told everyone to can it and nothing was done to prevent it. So yes he is complicit in that resoect. And yes there was a trail of debri from the Towers to WTC 7. Here is the link to the paper that puts Alan Firmage’s comment further into context:
      http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/…..801bdadd6e
      also check these out:
      http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
      So keep it up man I got something for everything in this case.

      1. yes you are the answer man

        you have silly not the point answers for a few of my many statements and questions.

        everything but the truth.

        didn’t expect to win you over. thanks for the responses anyway.

      2. your rumsfeld response is particularly filled with psychobabble. care to discuss why he hid in his office – unresponsive – during the attack?

        william rodriguez SAW firsthand evidence of detonations. lou also SAW stuff that he later concluded could only have been detonations. this was what he wanted to tell the commission about.

        1. Very little psychobabble in that post just basic human behavior. He knew that he was going to have to answer for this there for he probably paniced and tried to develop a strategy for dealing with this that would cover his ass. Basic trait of humanity, act in one’s own best interests, sad but true.

          1. so you agree that he was hiding in his office !!?? human nature … what?

            you’re saying that mr can do shock n awe stretcher carrier square jaw tuff guy beshat hisself? i say he was hiding for the most obvious of reasons.

          2. how much psychobabble is a little?

      3. pretty cr@ppy responses butterbean.

        1. While you may think they are crappy you also have no response to them. As with all these rediculous “truther” theories once someone puts them up against logic and reason they tend to lose steam. THere is no 9/11 truther movement anymore. I used to be very interested in what would come out of them. I for a short period of time toyed with the idea of a conspiracy. Once all the relevant data was gathered and tallied it became evident that there was no conspiracy there was only incompetance and hatred.

          1. “only incompetence and hatred”

            getting warm

          2. why are you calling my lengthy responses filled with specificity no response.

            nanothermite in the dust yes or no.

          3. you don’t know what i think. i think

      4. how convenient for you that there is a LOT of speculation including eyewitness reports by firemen and policemen of detonations but nothing credible? miiiiiighty dang convenient

        hahaha er heh

      5. re rummie “it was because the possibility of a large scale terrorist attack did not fit his preconceived notions” tb

        is why he was hiding in the pent broom closet with gen montague on that fateful morn? you say?

        that is soooooooooooooooooo blatantly incorrect ……. depth of ignorance & dishonesty of view revealed on the simplest issue …..

        rummie is on record as saying – that very morning – talking to some congresscritters at breakfast – the gist: he predicts a terrorist attack and soon.

        look it up shmendrick tastes great or less filling?

  106. where was rumsfeld? why?

  107. let me help

    @ 9:06 am bushie is told by his chief of staff andrew card that we have been attacked and are at war.

    at this same time rumsfeld sits in his office, not knowing seeing or hearing anything (an impossibility) until the pentagon gets hit @ 9:38 am at which point he claims to go all the way around the bldg to help carry stretchers — with the nation under attack and his cell phone ringing like crazy.

    and why is gen montague mia? even funnier

    you tell me

  108. This article makes some interesting points about Assange’s future release of data.
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a…..r_for_good

    1. been saying that good stuff right here

      yes encouraging piece from the establishment

  109. turns out that gen winfield montague, the man in charge of the national military control center, 200′ directly below rumsfeld’s office with elevator (in a nuke bomproof shelter!?), left his post @ 8:30 am – logged out – to go offsite we know not where in actuality for at least an hour and a half. the 9/11 commish never asked. and the story disappeared down a gopher hole.

    on * 9/10 * montague requests a leave of absence from his watch duty from 8:30 am to 10:30 am for the next day 9/11. whoa

    a rookie agrees to take his place and that’s who ran the nmcc during the crucial attack hours. leaderless, without rummie who is hiding incommunicado in his office, into wombat we stumble.

    as the good gen gets ready to leave his post on 9/11 really ** weird ** sh!t is occurring in the nation’s skies despite perfect weather.

    he’s not interested and scoots out the door. ta taa im going to see my proctologist. you have a fun couple of hours he might have said.

    ……

    why don’t you tell us the rest of the story?

  110. nanothermite in the wtc dust

    yes or no

  111. is molten iron a by-product of a nanothermite reaction on steel?

    yes or no

  112. Oh please. That may be the dumbest argument I have ever heard. I thought it was going to be really interesting. I got some news ffor you. GEnerals are the most useless rank in the military. They don’t know how to do anything. They don’t push buttons they don’t guide actions. All a commander is there for is to serve as the authority for a plan of action. Do you think they actually draft up operations and have original effective ideas. Your basis that somehow his absence degraded the watches ability shows your utter lack of knowledge on how the government works. Generals are there to sign paperwork, take credit, and place blame. They provide nothing of any real value. So an officer taking to hours off for no reason. Not unusual. You are utterly gullible.

    1. you’re saying that the gen’s absence is no biggie. okay

      what i would like to know is where the gen actually was at 9:16 am ten minutes after the nation was officially under attack. dereliction of duty!?

      but here’s the part that pisses me off: you can actually read the news stories online

      the good gen gets some talking head press cnn whoever and does he haaaaaam it up and acts like he was actually there in the heat of battle smoke coming in and all as the cool calm collected and brave soldiers HE WAS NOT THERE until much later 10:30 am at the earliest under his magnificent command ……… that’s not blowhardism that’s fucking LYING.

      now this gen is a vile dikkkhead

  113. within this time frame bushie sits at booker elementary school four miles from the bradenton fla airport – an easy target – listening to children read a goat story. (he already knows that we are under attack) the prez photo op was known well in advance and was his only scheduled appt for the day.

    was the prez a SITTING GOAT or DUCK?

    since you’re in intelligence can you tell me who over-rode the secret service command @ 9:07 am — where outta here !!!!

    and so much more

    why don’t you tell me.

    1. I am fortunately not in intelligence. Apparently there are associations in my past that preclude me from it, however, it has not stoppped me from studying it. As for Bush, I don’t think that he thinks well on his feet. I think 8 years of his presidency are proof of that.

      1. doesn’t think well off his feet either but that didn’t stop him from being prez and the most powerful man in the world.

        dad’s money and influence

  114. those wikileaks wascals are up to it again !!!!??????

    let’s bring your war out into the open.

    you won’t have to defend yourselves if you leave.

    1. As you know we now have an obligation the the Afghan people. We put them in this mess. It would be immoral to just leave them there. You are truly devoid of any critical thinking skills if you can’t figure that out.

      1. what horsesh!t and you know it.

        you know nothing about morality. you’re a lost soul in the city of the damned. very sorry

        love jesus

        1. Lets follow the logic here. WWII, we entered after Pearl Harbor. It was considered an unprovoked attack. There were indications that it was comng and was a result of the US and Japan vying for control of th Pacific. War is fought we win and then we help rebuild both countries. Both countries become prosperous. Now this was a lesson learned from WWI where everyone just left Germany to flounder. We didn’t have an obligation then to rebuild these countries but the world reaped the benefits. Now we have moved in and displaced and disrupted two countries by invading. Them. If the CF leave now Afghanistan will not survive. It will devolve back into the Afghan civil war. Far more lives will be lost and far more attrocities will be commited if that is allowed to happen. Are you willing to sentence the Afghan people, who by most estimates are innocent in all this, to that fate?

          1. there are many ways to help the people of afhanistan. war doesn’t happen to make the top 100.

  115. Check this out. It is from Noam Chomsky.
    “…I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we’d have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists — of whom there are thousands — who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that’s been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission.”

    “I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That’s of course up to you. I’ve explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.”

    “…I don’t see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,… etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through “prevention of terrorism acts” and the like. By the “who gains” argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.”

    “I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.”

    1. have you seen david ray griffin’s recent open letter response to chomsky and others?

      http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039

      i will post some quote in a few minutes

      noam chomsky is the most well known and beloved leftie and greatly respected worldwide. he is a heroic figure. turns out even heroes get preoccupied.

      i could discuss what chomsky is saying but doc griffin does it waaay better.

      1. I look forward to it

    2. chomsky and i agree on the fact that the neocons would have been utterly insane.

      you got any evidence indicating they aren’t insane?

  116. ah good ol incompetence and hatred the great universal excuse argument

    contemplate this:

    you’re in the thick of it. what does that make you?

    naothermite dust yes no maybe so

  117. don’t know why my copy thingie doesn’t link. guess you realize im no hacker.

    the letter by griffin is recent march 2010 i think.

    here’s some:

    According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles.

    After documenting this charge in Part I of this essay, I show in Part II that the exact opposite is the case: that the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center implies miracles (I give nine examples), and that the 9/11 Truth Movement, in developing an alternative hypothesis, has done so in line with the assumption that the laws of nature did not take a holiday on 9/11. In Part III, I ask these left-leaning critics some questions evoked by the fact that it is they, not members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who have endorsed a conspiracy theory replete with miracle stories as well as other absurdities.

    I The Charge that 9/11 Truth Theories Rest on Unscientific, Even Magical, Beliefs

    Several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, besides showing contempt for its members, charge them with relying on claims that are contradicted by good science and, in some cases, reflect a belief in magic. By “magic,” they mean miracles, understood as violations of basic principles of the physical sciences.

    For example, Alexander Cockburn, who has referred to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as “9/11 conspiracy nuts,”3 quoted with approval a philosopher who, speaking of “the 9-11 conspiracy cult,” said that its “main engine . . . is . . . the death of any conception of evidence,” resulting in “the ascendancy of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”4 Also, Cockburn assured his readers: “The conspiracy theory that the World Trade Centre towers were demolished by explosive charges previously placed within them is probably impossible.”5 With regard to Building 7 of the World Trade Center, Cockburn claimed (in 2006) that the (2002) report by FEMA was “more than adequate.”6

    Likewise, George Monbiot, referring to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as “fantasists,” “conspiracy idiots,” and “morons,” charged that they “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.”7

    Matt Taibbi, saying that the “9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid” and referring to its members as “idiots,” wrote with contempt about the “alleged scientific impossibilities” in the official account of 9/11; about the claim that “the towers couldn’t have fallen the way they did [without the aid of explosives]”; of the view (held by “9/11 Truthers”) that “it isn’t the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick”; and of “the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.” He had been assured by “scientist friends,” he added, that “[a]ll of the 9/11 science claims” are “rank steaming bullshit.”8

    …………..

    1. it’s a very long incredibly thorough debunking of chomsky et al imhfo.

      anyone wanting to understand our position needs to read the long letter.

      why doncha read it and get back to me?

      thanks

      1. google: griffin letter chomsky

        1. I am looking it up right now but before I do I would like to make the charge that it is easy to call science that you don’t like or that contradicts your preconceived notions “magic”. The quotes that come from Taibbi are damning to his crediblity. That is exactly why he puts it in the book. He points out that he is not a scientist or expert by any means and the science of it he got from his freinds. But if you read the book you will see that he talks to the actual 9/11 truthers. He exposes theh human side of the movement which shows that they had every interest in perpetuating their own theory. It is actually a hillarious book and the 9/11 part takes up the last third or so of it.

          1. good point

            i love all these lefties except maybe cockburn.

            taibbi wonderful expose of goldman sachs in rolling stone. way after the fact but appreciated nevertheless

  118. Here is a list of people and groups who would HAVE to be involved to pull this off:
    -The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history… Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neil have come out for less.

    -The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It’s their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don’t call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers… Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don’t even know…

    Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.

    http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles…..m?Section=
    OnlineArticles&SubSe; ction=Display&PUBLICATION;_ID=
    25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

    http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles…..icles&
    SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

    Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.

    -The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

    -The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn’t ask for an investigation. Motive? None…

    -The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

    -All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer…

    -The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don’t want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it’s the money… [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]

    -The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn’t follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either…

    -The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the “Controlled demolition” account.

    -Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

    -PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

    -Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn’t have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called “Conspiracy”. In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that’s simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

    -NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

    -The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.

    -EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn’t write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don’t know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones’ work to any structural engineer?

    -Structure Magazine who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.

    -The liberals who don’t believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They’re helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue…

    -The CIA

    -The FBI

    -FEMA

    -The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.

    -NORAD

    -The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.

    -The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

    -Silverstein’s Insurance Company who didn’t question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

    -American Airlines (Pentagon)

    -United Airlines (Pentagon)

    -Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

    -Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

    -Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

    -Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

    -Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

    -Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

    -People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

    -Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

    -Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

    -People who detonated the buildings”

    -anyone who thinks the

    1. “The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did.”

      quite the opposite: they cleverly with malice aforethought succeeded in destroying (almost) our country.

      you misunderestimate the jack-booted neocons. they’ve been actively preparing openly since reagan.

      1. But you fail to address the shear volume of groups that would have to be complicit to pull this off. This disproves the conspiracy theory before even getting to the evidence.

        1. got a couple of trillion dollars!?

    2. the phones work just fine.

    3. simple: top down rules, controls and destroys whistleblowers for pocket change.

  119. richard c clarke is an interesting case.

    he was running the white house video teleconference and claims that rumsfeld was part of it early rumsfeld says no. someone is uh mistaken. the easy proof is in the tape wherever that might be hidden.

  120. the fire fighters did call and call and call for an investigation. look into it.

    also this year 70,000 signatures of nyc residents asked for a city investigation into the many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. the signatures qualified the petition for placement on the 2010 ballot. guess what. the city said tufftittie no.

  121. stop trying to discredit by yapping about some conspiracy website.

    you certainly imply that conspiracy sites speak with one voice which is clearly not the case.

    there’s a lot of intentional misinformation & misdirection out there.

  122. firehouse mag thought it exceedingly odd that evidence of the first sky scraper steel structures collapsing by fire had the evidence removed so quickly by fema. think new orleans hurricane. before anyone had a chance to study the situation.

  123. you are right a big question is how could this be covered up.

    within the first few days of 9/11 a little birdie told me that the thing was a false flag op. so i’ve been following among other things the stone walling process these ten years. it’s vast the stonewalling.

    if the conspiracy does indeed go to the core of a nazi dictatorship, who are you gonna tell ghostbusters?

    everyone who has ever stepped up to tell their story has been SLAMMED. the message is loud and clear.

    what makes you think that we haven’t gathered real evidence from many many sources? julian yoo hoo

    1. There were thousands of birdies saying the same thing, I was one of them.

      1. nanothermite in dust? yes or no

        molten iron is by-product of nanothermite reaction on steel? yes or no

          1. your evidence?

          2. gotcha on this one. u gonna weasel?

            * science * ta da says that molten iron is a by-product of a nanothermite reaction on steel.

            YES is the correct answer.

      2. tweet tweet

  124. have you googled these excellent organizations:?

    architects engineers 9/11 truth

    how about

    pilots 9/11 truth

  125. I have looked at them and each and everyone has been discredited with empirical evidence. Where is Julian Assange in all this. Wouldn’t he have leaked evidence of this long before. As for people getting SLAMMED I disagree. The world entertained the idea for about 2 years but after a while the evidence to the contrary piled up. Also in the end whta di it get anyone. I didn’t result in new oil markets. It has been the political downfall of everyone involved. If the architect of this truly Machiavellian plot could pull this off then why didn’t they foresee the result would be the ruin of them all. None of the conspiracy evidence adds up. It require physics and humanity to defy their respective laws.

    1. the neonazi neocons haven’t lost by a longshot.

      they control the m-i-c.

      the bushies,cheney, rumsfeld, rove, rice are quite happily enjoying their hard earned wealth.

      ~ ~ ~

      there really is no one to tell because at the top of the food chain is the angry 800 lb gorilla. why throw your life away by needlessly conveying the truth? simple

    2. got empirical evidence

      please show me

      IN YOUR OWN WORDS

      1. My own words actually shouldn’t way to heavily on this case. I am in no way an expert in many of the fields required here therefore I look for people who do have the credentials and site their work. It the nature of research my friend.

        1. yes indeed

          really comes down to who can you trust

  126. we have had ten years to sift thru the debris. we know what we know and that will never go away.

    turns out that cheney was running the show in the white house bunker.

    is he a nazi or what?

  127. so what do you think silversten meant when he said pull it?

    silverstein got a huge sum payment in record time. he made a nice profit.

    think the mossad didn’t know in advance. think again. how fortunate for the thousands of israelis who didn’t show up for work in the wtc’s on that fateful morn?

    across the river pictures of dancing israelis as wtc’s burn in background. phtoshop u say?

    israel is so happy happy with all our warring against islam. man jooze is smart.

  128. did the happy hooligans whoever they were actually shoot down that plane over pa?

    no way the cell phone technology was good enough back then to get the false heroic plane takeover bunkum.

    1. Actually this is one I wil concede to you. It is very hard for a cell phone to get coverage when it is flying through the air above the cell towers. Unless the phones used had a service that allowed them to to roam on a satellite network. I am not sure if the plane was shot down or not. That is a cover up that could be maybe be pulled off. You would have to convince the two pilots to not say anything as well as their ground crew. You would also have to silence who ever made the recording and whoever provided you th phone information so you could fabricate the calls. Very dificult to get that many people to keep their mouths shut but possible. The question now become why would they do that. I could be to avoid recriminations about blowing up a plane that may or may not have hit the towers. And then the convenient phone calls came out and they didn’t have to. But what about the family members that IDd their loved ones voices on the phone. Quite a lot of bribes being handed out. I guess there was not one person their who felt indignant about coverin up tjhe truth or thought they would get a bigger payout somewhere else? Not sure but that on does have many questions that need to be answered.

      1. agreed

        1. the story of the brave amuricans taking possession of the plane is a LIE.

          propaganda that makes one want to puke.

          1. how about the supposed ring leader atta?

            major cocaine habit hung out with hookers chopped his girlfriend’s cat into tiny pieces. does that sound like a moozie extremist happy to meet his maker and those heavenly virgins?

            we do know that he had military training here and that the cia ran the fla flight school where he got his small plane license.

            1. Sounds like a wack job all to willing to ram a plane into a building. I will be using that profile of him you have provided in future arguments.

              1. happy to help

  129. other stuff:

    a shut down transponder is an immediate danger signal to faa.

    transponders give you altitude. blip would still be on radar no altitude info izall. bullshitstorm right there.

    ever actually see a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon? the pilot was amazing.

    twas a missile.

  130. wanna know how long it was before fighter plane escorts got to air force one as the prez flew into harm’s way in big circles for a long time?

    incompetence you say?

    surely you jest?

  131. you’ve got some splainin to do.

    take your time.

  132. 9/11 commish blatant cover-up !!

    u know that’s true.

  133. you know who was the first head commish?

    henry kissinger, that pillar of integrity, until he was quickly forced out.

    did you know that bushie was totally opposed to the commish?

    did you know that bushie and cheney were permitted to testify in secret together without being sworn in?

    and on and on and on pro bono

    1. did they ever find the black box on the pent hit?

  134. did you know that operation vigilant guradian, a simulated 9/11 attack, was being conducted at the same time as the real attacks were occurring?

    there’s that odd coinkiedinkie again.

    1. Notice that many other operations were being performed in conjunction with OVG. They covered a broad spectrum of activities including a nuclear attack. Also notice that it was a simulated hijacking excercise. Have their ever been plane hijackings in the US before?

      The military exercises (war games) planned for September 11, 2001 included:

      Global Guardian, an annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and NORAD. Primary purpose is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures. Global Guardian is performed in conjunction with NORAD’s Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior, as well as exercises sponsored by Air Combat Command (Crown Vigilance) and Space Command (Apollo Guardian).[3][4]
      Vigilant Guardian, the semiannual NORAD exercise that had been running in conjunction with Global Guardian for several days and which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. Vigilant Guardian is a Command Post Exercise (CPX), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. The exercise involves all NORAD command levels.[5] Out of a range of scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, one was a “traditional” simulated hijacking.[6] According to General Eberhart, after the first attack, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation.[7] Because of an increased number of staff, the exercise would prove to be an enabler of rapid military response for NORAD and its NEADS component, as senior officials who were manning NORAD command centers throughout the U.S. were available to make rapid decisions.[8]
      There is also one other, exercise:

      Vigilant Warrior, in his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke claims there was a NORAD exercise ongoing called Vigilant Warrior.[9] The claim is based on a comment that Richard Myers made to Clarke via a video link on September 11, 2001. However, there is no other record of a NORAD exercise named Vigiliant Warrior. Myers was possibly referring to Vigilant Guardian (the aforementioned yearly NORAD exercise held in conjunction with Global Guardian) or Amalgam Warrior (a large-scale, live-fly, CINCNORAD sponsored exercise which is held twice annually).[10] Vigilant Warrior was also a 1994 operation by the US army in the Persian Gulf region, in response to Iraqi troop movements towards Kuwait.[11]

      1. always with the words by the pound.

        do you answer in yes or no form?

        let’s try that mutually.

        why are you trying so much to obfuscate? what are you hiding? who are you?

        1. Hey a tard like you couldn’t discover my master plan. Unless you were one of them meddling kids.

          1. dikkkwart

  135. there are many unanswered questions.

    we want a people’s investigation.

  136. have you looked into the bush family industrial wall st connections – early 1900’s – with inustrialist germans counterparts or the bush family active open support of nazi germany?

    1. It is irrelevant whether or not bush had German connections, that maybe may have shown he was a closet Nazi. Even if he was a self proclaimned Nazi it would not make this sort of operation any more possible.

      1. not in the closet as prescott was indicted in 1942.

        there is no connecting of the dots for you!? no sense of correlation?

        1. Correlation is not causation. As I have said it is irrelevant. Also if he were a closet Nazi why would he be such a support of a Jew conspiracy as YOU indicated. You nee to follow your logic to the end so you can marshal better arguments. Otherwise you wind up contradicting yourself.

          1. i have warned you about the little square box you march around in.

            correlation is correlation and sooner or later the big hammer ……

            1. Hangin out in the box you built.

              1. u like the potted plant?

  137. 9/11 was a military operation

    box cutters indeed

    1. Why not box cutters. People are for the most part cowards. Most Hijackings end by landing in some shithole country. Sometimes a few people are killed as hostages. But rarely do the hijackers ram the thing into a building.

      1. why not military false flag op? the evidence clearly supports this scenario.

        box cutters and moozies the misdirection and the excuse to attack islam.

        planes did NOT cause the near free fall collapse of those buildings.

        hint: nazis = occult black arts …. some golden calf jews are part of “it” too but most jooze are awesomely good people.

        1. You haven’t produced a single argument that doesn’t have an obvious answer. What happened to the military operatives in this operation. Clearly you have never spoken to a SF guy. This is not something in their scope. CIA maybe but unlikely. I love that you ass the occult arts piece. It realy helps the sanity of your argument.

          1. Not sure where the ass part came from nut I think I meant to say: “I love that you bring up the occult arts piece”

            Some kind of typing Torrette’s.

            1. nanothermite in dust yes or no

              1. don’t know much about the occult do you

                well then you’re the only one

                because everyone reads the stuff on the net like the lurid tabloids at the checkout counter

                er sumthin

          2. do you know about the spear of destiny and why gen patton immediately handed it over to ike.

            patton was scared shitless. imagine that.

            the spear of destiny now resides once again with the hapsburgs in vienna sausage land.

            where hitler as a young man from was known to stand for hours in front of the sword and just STARE. true story.

            u can’t make this stuff up

            1. But that is not proof of anything. Could people be awed by a weapon that supposedly killed a god? Sure. But if you are saying that this thing has some sort of unearthly power then you must believe in magic as well. It is well known that Hitler had a facination with the occult, this just adds to the fact that he was incredibly unstable. What relevance does this have?

              1. sorry u don’t get it.

                1. you don’t think hitler standing, staring, silently in front of the spear of destiny for hours at a time as a youth has any real meaning for the world?

                  are u off yer nutjob? watchouttheregonnagitya

              2. have we mentioned the occult skull and bones yet?with the connect ready …… the bavarian illuminati huge steins of excellent beer

                have they returned geronimo’s skull back to his burial ground or not? orescott was such a cute little imp back in his days of ivy and skull theft.

          3. your concern for my sanity is touching.

          4. i’m still waiting for your obvious answer.

            nanothermite in dust yes or no

          5. many obviously wrong answers obviously right?

          6. agreed the answers are obvious

  138. here’s something else to ponder.

    the second plane flew right over the indian point nuclear thingie …….

    1. Finish that sentence. Indian Point nuclear power plant. What does that have to do with anything?

      1. i see you’re still stuck on side issues.

        if ONE were an arab extremist flying a hijacked bomb he might seriously consider maximizing his death by hitting the WIDE OPEN indian point plant and devastating the entire east coast for the next one hundred thousand years. the plane could have done it god forbid bad things.

        more points with mohammed = more virgins in heaven

        1. Your lack of knowledge about Islam aside, I did not bring up the side issue of the plant. But I will entertain this cute little strawman. bin Laden was after a statement and symbolic targets. The body count was only an added bonus. Can you imagine the response if he had hit the plant. I bet he could. It would not have been pretty. Their are a ton of targets he could have hit that would have been more effective than the WTC and Pentagon but he had different objectives than just death.

          1. i agree

            now those bushies they also understand the power of symbols to get what they want.

        2. i may know as much or more about islam than you know since my first name is mo.

          i was being funny as in hahahahaha now and above

          1. Where are Larry and Curly, Mo. If you are trying to imply that you are a muslim forgive me if I am skeptical.

            1. i am saying that i know my way around a hash pipe with exotic moozie designs on it. but you can call me curly

              i never met an a rab i didn’t like.

              wooob wooob woooooooob

              1. Ok then what is the Arabic word for Hash?

                1. sooooooooookah

                  1. next time (first time) u smoke some hash gently rub your closed eyes and watch the ancient islamic mosaics dance.

                2. my typewriter dont do arabic

  139. there is also the very curious fact that bin laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country immediately after 9/11 — WITH ALL OTHER PLANES GROUNDED OVER U.S. AIRSPACE

    and let’s not forget the news stories that say bin laden was visited many times during his stay in the summer of ’01 in the american hospital in dubai.

    bin laden is worth much more alive (in the public imagination) than dead.

    1. Thats an easy one. The bin Laden’s sadly enough were closely associated with the Bush’s as were many high profile Saudi’s. They were allowed to leave due the inevitable backlash that was about to come their way. A few diplomatic connections can get you far. Don’t forget that the bin Laden’s have all but disowned their wayward son. Lets talk about bin Laden a moment. Some say all of this was an effort on his part to move Middle East support against the US and get them pushed out of Muslim lands. Then the theory goes that he would use that success to garner popular support and overthrow the Saudi Government and set up a new Caliphate. That is a very likely scenario and one worth looking at. Also bin Laden was still a CIA source at the time. Do you really think he wasn’t still milking them?

      1. the powerful bin laden family is very interesting story of course.

        we said to the bin laden family oh gosh you folks might be persecuted we better get you out before anyone in the entire country moves to spit on you. how wonderfully thoughtful of our compassionate neocons.

        it is obvious that bin laden has been in our employ all along. he was handpicked by saudi intelligence to be the man in afghanistan working with the cia in the largest cia op ever. the bin flip flop cia is a cover story and a good one

        bin was/IS a prince among all the princes with many powerful friends today. he remains close to some of his family members, assuming that the very sick man is still among the living.

        we know he was on the payroll of the cia at least until 9/11.

        google: sibel edmonds

        1. Quick excerpt from an article in FP. They didn’t source it though:
          2. Osama Bin Laden doesn’t have many friends. According to the University of Maryland survey of six Arab countries, Osama bin Laden is less and less popular (and in political terms, increasingly irrelevant). Back in 2003, “confidence” in bin Laden was well into double digits in many Arab countries. By 2008, however, only 14 percent of those surveyed in six Arab countries said Bin Laden was the leader they admired most. This year, that number has fallen to a mere 6 percent. Still too high, as far as I’m concerned, but the trend is undiluted good news.

          I don’t believe that the bin Laden was a compassionate move. It was more likley a diplomatic one. I don’t think the fact that he has been in the employ of the CIA is in question. They did train and supply him for the Soviet war. However it is possible that in their arrogance he used them. This infact makes it more likely that bin Laden was responsible for this. He was able to misdirect CIA investigations and play them to his own ends. Not unusual with CIA tards.

          1. bin is in the service of Islam we hope and pray.

            just as you are in the service of …..

            1. It seems to me that “bin” as you have so lovingly dubbed him is in the service of “bin”. He may believe in parts of what he says I think he is doing this for his own reasons. It is less about Islam and more about power.

              1. you would know this HOW?

                1. It is pretty easy to see. He is using Islam as his shield and patron. He is doing all this, so he say, for Islam. If yo look at many of the sects of Islam they preach tolerance and peace. He is interpretingit in a way that suits his own desires. I’m sure he has a great deal of narcissism to deal with as well.

                  1. your discernment makes me dizzy my lord.

          2. u forget that he only has to be beloved by the extremist minority for his efforts to succeed.

            our military continues to do everything in its power to enflame the extremists. good job team. yo lep

            1. Well that depends on what you think his goals are. I believe his goals are to start a new Caliphate with himself at the head of it. He would have to win over his Muslim Brethren and destroy the Shia elements. Not sure how he is going to accomplish that with just extremists on his side.

              1. sounds like what you’re saying is that bin is God or thinks he is.

                rather silly notion.

                1. who are you to presume you know his deepest motives? such arrogance

                2. maybe as he was getting bombed in tora bora he saw the prophet.

                  and the prophet said oy

                  1. I’m sure he would have been disappointed if the prophet had said “oy”

                    1. do you really need to be reminded that arabs and jews are semites mostly descended from the same gene pool!?

                    2. abrahmam moses jesus mohammed marvin

                      all brethren kumbaya

                    3. I don’t but apparently they do. And yes I am also aware that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all Abrahmaic religions. We may even be able to call them three different sects of one monotheistic religion.

                    4. u might even say that abe’s kids ishmael and yitzchuk were half brothers.

              2. his goal is to serve u know who

    2. ya know this progressive movement doesn’t pay much.

  140. Wamsagongo and Toolbag – are you the warring alters of a a very intelligent but politically labile person with Dissociative Identitiy Disorder?

    Or are you going for a world posting record?

    1. posting record only for reason site

      very small site

      we’re having a stimulating conversation

      care to join

      1. I feel bad having it on this forum though. Hijacking and all. hehe

  141. 1000 here we come

  142. i don’t know about you but i am getting tired of typing.

  143. my voice is hoarse from yelling at the computer screen

    juss kiddin

  144. in conclusion of round one

    toolbag says no to nanothermite. does tb have any logic behind his magical belief?

    gongo says yes see all the friggin posts

    1. There is no credible evidence that reveals the presence of Nan0-Thermite. Just wild ravings of lunatics and the intellectually dishonest.

      1. science says:

        1. Yes science says there is nothing that proves existence of nano-thermite. It is hard admit you are wrong when you espose a view so vehemently and then are shown ample evidence to the contrary. Many members of the Truther movement had to go through this. As the momentum for it dwindled they got more and more desperate and secluded themselves into smaller and smaller echo chambers. Out of these echochambers came the most wild of the theories. THis movement could have done something about the accountability that the government does have but instead it focused on myths and outright lies.

          1. looks like we have an honest disagreement there fella.

            when is my fingerprint not my finger print?

            ans when u say so

            ah those poor truthers: desperate, isolated, depressed, moody, poor, no more food stamps and worst of all out of weed. losers indeed. movement smashed by sneering snide ridicule by secret agent man personally. yowzah

            did you take a half hour to read griffin’s open letter to my favorite lefties including chomsky like u said u would? as far as i know no response to his letter from the smarty pants lefties which to me is curious. cause if my name was on that list i’d tell griffin to stick it and flat out tell him he’s a maroon. u betcha. i miiiiiight

          2. anything prove the existence of those pools of molten er um ah metal that burned for eons in those sub-basements?

            if u say no. i will change my view immediately. thanks

      2. t bag has so decreed.

        hail t bag

        viva t bag

      3. fine pathetic but fine

        again and again

        please explain the pools of molten something

        o wait they were droplets from the science tooth fairy

      4. hint: real pools of molten iron need an explanation

        got answer?

      5. t bag

        begins round two with a rubber armed tap to his own temple and a cute shuffle with head bob

  145. it had to have been that rummie had some thermite in his pocket.

  146. go here:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/es…..idues.html

    he writes good sounding science stuff anyway. wouldn’t want to scare you away.

    into:

    The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.

    1. do you speak science or will you need a google translator?

  147. tastes great ………..

    less filling …………………..

  148. Aluminothermics 101

    Image from AmazingRust.com of a simple thermite reaction involving iron oxide and aluminum. This video shows thermite melting through a car.

    Aluminothermic reactions are a class of energy-releasing oxidation-reduction chemical reactions in which elemental aluminum reduces a compound, typically by stealing the oxygen from a metal oxide. Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar to conventional high explosives.

    Backers of the official account of 9/11, including NIST officials, have dismissed evidence that aluminothermics were used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers, claiming that thermite’s slow reaction rate makes it an unsuitable tool for demolishing buildings. Despite repeated requests by scientists and researchers to address the potential role of advanced aluminothermic composites with high explosive power, officials have refused to acknowledge such materials.

  149. Energy Density and Power Density
    material energy density
    by mass:
    MJ/KG by volume:
    In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. [1] [2]

    Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives — a classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack. Despite the fact that high-tech aluminothermics have existed and been used by the military since the mid-1990s or earlier, methods of identifying explosive residues at crime scenes are frequently limited to analysis of nitro-aromatic explosives. [3]
    Energetic Nanocomposites

    The term ‘nano-thermite’ applied to the unignited thermitic material discovered in World Trade Center dust is potentially misleading because it doesn’t capture the complexity and sophistication of this material or its known analogs. Perhaps a better term is energetic nanocomposites, a class of materials that has been used by the military for some time in applications spanning propellants, armor-piercing munitions, and reactive armor. In their diverse roles, energetic nanocomposites fulfill a range of requirements including: “high density, good mechanical properties, low sensitiveness, good stability, low cost, ease of manufacturing, and environmental acceptability.” [4] To achieve these requirements, scientists developing advanced aluminothermic materials have learned to embed the fine powders in a carbon- and silicon-rich matrix. Kevin Ryan explains:

  150. part of conclusion:

    Discussion

    The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

    The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.

    That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .

    I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. “Debunkers” have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers’ concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?

    As the work of explaining away the direct evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient such workability arguments are:

    * That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too prone to exposure.
    * That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers’ crash zones was technically unfeasible.
    * That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.

    These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their continued repetition — including by NIST itself — after being publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the existence of explosive variants of thermite.
    FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics

    With the publication of Active Thermitic Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most frequently-heard questions about the implementation of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers — answers that thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions using aluminothermics was not feasible.

    Following are the three arguments listed above re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active Thermitic Material Discovered.
    How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?

    As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building’s take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.
    Why Weren’t Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?

    Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers’ tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building’s exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn’t an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature — above 900?C. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.
    How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?

    The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

      1. hey gongo what makes you think you know a scholar and scientist from a bowl of borscht?

      2. does that sound like wild raving to you?

  151. sweden saturday assange:

    The founder of WikiLeaks says his group will not be threatened by U.S. officials, but the website will remove the names of “innocent parties” before publishing more secret military documents from Afghanistan.

    WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange told reporters in Sweden Saturday he is not acting in the face of demands by the Pentagon or any other group.

    Assange said WikiLeaks intends to publish another 15,000 secret documents on the Internet later this month. All the documents are being reviewed “line by line,” he added, and the names of “innocent parties who are under reasonable threat” will not be disclosed.

    1. ainthesweet

      1. as further proof that julian listens to his adoring public, he dyed his hair brown, cut it fashionably short and looks like he might dress more corporate.

        u.s. would have better results if instead of demanding and fulminating …..

        a gentle voice turns away the wrath

      2. how’s that for fair?

  152. and the final score is ….?

  153. c’mon you all are so close to 1000.

  154. truth 101

    obfuscation 0.5

  155. 8/18

    Assange said Wednesday that “contact has been established” but added it was not clear whether and how the U.S. military would assist WikiLeaks.

    “It is always positive for parties to talk to each other,” Assange said. “We welcome their engagement.”

    He reiterated that WikiLeaks plans to release its second batch of secret Afghan war documents within “two weeks to a month.”

    K U M B A Y A

  156. love his boyish image change too.

    1. don’t know…he kind of looks like a corporate villain straight out of central casting. liked him better with white hair especially short. if this is his blending into the crowd look, maybe he shouldn’t be showcasing it. but he’d be awesome even in a pink tutu.

      1. was toolbag’s unit called up?

        1. down the rabbit hole

  157. The smear campaign against WikiLeaks is interesting, though one wouldn’t hope to find Reason aiding it. One can’t help but think of the break-in by by Nixon’s henchmen at Daniel Ellsburg’s psychiatrist’s office to obtain information damaging to the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers. The government need not do that now as it has Reason, the NYTimes, and Fox News willing to discredit Julian Assange.

  158. I agree, Michael! Assange should stop calling himself a journalist just as soon as you stop calling yourself a libertarian. You certainly are not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, nor are you a “journalist” yourself.

  159. +27
    +57
    +73

    This article is a farce. M. Moynihan works for an organization with an activist agenda, that being “libertarian, but of a practical sort.” Is he a journalist, activist, or both, and is it worthwhile for anyone to waste 15 minutes addressing the issue? Unless you’re preparing briefs for the government to advise them on how one may skate around the 1st amendment, I imagine not.

    1. what are those numbers, the password to the insurance file?

  160. Wikileaks have been crying out for editorial assistance to help them process all the data they have – – Where were you Mr Editor?

  161. I doubt the allegations against Assange were orchestrated by the U.S.
    They probably would have come up with something deadlier like a tragic accident or a murder-suicide scenario. In fact, probably any intelligence operative of any nation would have done a better job. Whoever was behind this was an amateur.

  162. In the company of those who survived the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields,

  163. I don’t know what i would call her. I think that it is really interesting to have a lot of different people out there who give out information about different things that might not always be there, but I never really have thought of what to consider Julian. I will have to give it more thought and then I will get back to you. Thanks!

  164. Late to the party, but this is likely to get relinked here soon with the new documents out within the last few.

    If I’m understanding this article, Moynihan is essentially saying that Assange is the real-life equivalent of the main characters in the film, Primer as described by its writer: Intellectually rich but ethically bankrupt.

    For those few wondering, Primer is to me almost as Zardoz is to Nick Gillespie. Almost.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.