Activist scientist backs official 9/11 line

Manuel Garcia, a government weapons scientist, has gone to bat for the official narrative of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers as part of an assault by a group of leftists on those skeptical of government findings and the implication of a conspiracy within federal agencies.

Three analyses by Garcia were published by the noted leftist Alexander Cockburn in Cockburn's magazine Counterpunch. Cockburn, an Irishman living in the United States, also writes a column for the progressive magazine The Nation, which has just published a strong attack on 9/11 skeptics for supposedly whipping up paranoia.

Cockburn, son of a communist activist, has often been accused of taking up causes that reflect the communist political agenda but has been defended as an unjustly accused progressive.
[In fairness, Conant wishes to note that his reporting has appeared in the Communist Party organ, Pravda -- though that reference has been deleted from Google.]

Garcia, who holds a PhD in aerospace and mechanical engineering from Princeton University, has worked as a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which conducts classified weapons research, since 1978. His unclassified writings concern plasma physics experiments.

Garcia joins the scientist and noted socialist Noam Chomsky in denouncing those who don't believe the government's 9/11 claims.

Garcia was an activist on behalf of Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos scientist who is suing the New York Times to try to force disclosure of the source of reports identifying him as a suspected spy for China's nuclear weapons program. Garcia also was a vocal critic of the Energy Department's plan to administer polygraph tests to scientists and others at weapons labs in the wake of the Wen Ho Lee uproar.

Garcia's analyses are found
http://counterpunch.com/physic11282006.html


Garcia's activism on behalf of Wen Ho Lee
http://198.170.104.197/WHLrefctms.htm
[The second page appears to have been disabled after this post went on-line]
His opening attack on conspiracy theorists in general as mentally deluded has become a familiar, if logically irrelevant, refrain from various quarters, including from a segment of the left.

One wonders why Garcia published his analyses in Counterpunch rather than submitting his papers to a peer-reviewed journal. We don't know whether he plans to submit his 9/11 work to a scholarly journal. If not, we'd have to conclude that either he is not all that confident of his work, or he believes that some force won't permit discussion of 9/11 science and technology in peer-reviewed journals.

At any rate, here are Conant's comments on Garcia's analyses:

. Garcia asserts that the NIST investigation was an extremely detailed investigation by 200 engineers and building professionals. However, most of them were concerned with the physical minutae of specific experiments and had little or no say in the NIST's final report. Only a few people were involved in the computer simulations of the fires leading to "global collapse."
He fails to concede that the computer models DID NOT WORK until initial conditions were sufficiently tweaked.

. He cites various statements of the NIST without regard for the fact that the main report and the backup reports are in a number of places inconsistent. He seems unaware of deliberate NIST evasiveness about details of its collapse scenario.

. He explains the belches of smoke ejected from tower windows prior to collapse as a result of compression shock waves transmitted downward through the steel as the upper block began to give way. Nice hypothesis. The NIST didn't use it. More to the point, Garcia is unable to test his hypothesis because the NIST did not publish an exact table of times and window locations for the mysterious puffs of smoke captured in the mass of video and still photo evidence it had available.

. The collapse times he cites are novel, not, as far as I know, appearing in the public record as of 2005, though it is possible the NIST has since posted collapse times (it should be noted that the NIST web site search engine has proved unreliable). His calculations indicating these collapse times as reasonable are noteworthy. However, why didn't the NIST publish any analyses of the issue of fall times in its main report or supplemental reports?

Also, Garcia seems to be unaware of the problem of collapse time authenticity (see http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/fallrates.html), which may imply one or more after-the-fact disinformation operations.

. Garcia notes that the NIST rejects the initial "pancake theory" of collapse, but slides over the point that a modified pancake theory is implied. Yes, the NIST says wrecked core columns drag floors and walls inward and downward, although even that claim is problematic. But, in the NIST account, the columns are severed or critically weakened on upper floors, followed by a pancake collapse. In other words, how relevant is his attack on those who cite the pancake theory? Without a modified pancake theory, the NIST would be left with the requirement that building supports give way at low levels, implying explosives.
Another NIST idea is that the thermodynamics were such that core columns shortened and thus dragged down the floors and exterior walls. An implication might be that this shortening affected lower floors as well, hence giving the impression of lower supports being kicked out. Yet, the NIST does not go that far.

. Another problem Garcia misses is the fact that NIST reports and data are in places inconsistent. On the one hand, floor joist damage is inferentially blamed, but on the other, the joists must stay intact while the columns and trusses are critically damaged.

. Garcia seems to be unaware of the NIST's evasively presented blowtorch scenario. Had the fireproofing been blown off the floor slab undersides, the fire heat would have dispersed upward through the cement and steel floor slabs, rather than vectoring toward core columns in a concentrated, sustained fashion.

So the NIST model would work only if the fireproofing remained on the floor underside. Apparently it needed to remain on the floor joists connected to the core columns but needed to be stripped or partially stripped from the columns themselves (of course, this is not the impression given in some parts of the NIST's sets of reports and data).

However, the floor joists would be at about the same height as the ceiling which the blowtorch heat was running along on its way to the core columns.

Garcia takes no note of any of this or of many other peculiarities found in the NIST's presentation.

. Garcia also seems untroubled by the fact that the NIST uses no crime-scene forensics reports from the New York City police and fire departments, nor from any federal agency.

. In his speculation on the collapse of WTC7, Garcia skips the comment by FEMA investigators that the only scenario they could devise had only a low degree of probability. Why was the probability low? Because a standard failsafe system should have shut off the fuel oil supposedly being pumped up for hours from a large tank below. NIST investigators couldn't find records that might have indicated whether there was some anomaly in the electrical circuits of the building or the alternate power system.

Garcia seems to know nothing of these issues.

. One of the most important points bypassed by Garcia is the fact that the NIST conducted no experimental work on the possible use of planted explosives. Hence, it began with the a priori assumption that explosives weren't used and never did anything to test that assumption (though later it inserted unsupported statements that it had found "no evidence" of explosives).

Garcia seems non-cognizant of the remarkable fact that the 9/11 commission made the same assumption, in consultation with the NIST, a year before the NIST's final report on the twin towers.

. Garcia, who plans a further analysis of WTC7, doesn't seem bothered by the fact that WTC7's collapse is unique in the annals of steel structure buildings. He is also unfazed by the fact that the NIST's report on the twin towers was issued before its probe of WTC7 was anywhere near completion. Clearly, the NIST knows in advance that it is expected to rule out explosives. Otherwise, its theory about the twin towers would be thrown into question.

[Note: Garcia uses the Britishism "car park" as opposed to "parking lot" in his analyses, leading to the question of whether he had a silent co-author or editor who is British or has learned British English. Possibly Cockburn or an editorial assistant from the British Isles edited Garcia's reports.]

9/11 collapse times: a checkered record

A previous version of this post was a hasty note about Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch articles. I wrongly said that he did not consider WTC7 (because I had missed one of the articles). Apologies.
I still suggest that those concerned about World Trade Center collapse times review my article:
World Trade Center collapse times: omissions and disparities
http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/fallrates.html

'Softies' need to re-examine 9/11 and 2004 election

A few thoughts on high priority issues for the new Democratic congress:

* The Democrats were repeatedly castigated as "soft on terror" by the White House and high-level Republicans. Hence, it is imperative that Congress re-examine the issue of 9/11 to see whether a "war on terror" was justified. That is, was 9/11 an inside job? Congress can easily say that sufficient new evidence has come to light to warrant a deeper look than the GOP-run 9/11 commission undertook. (The commission was technically bipartisan, but the executive director is very close to Condoleeza Rice, who was national security adviser on 9/11.)

* A reputable poll -- squelched by U.S. media -- found that 57 percent of Americans were very concerned by the post-9/11 surveillance laws and edicts. Surely Congress must take a new look at these measures in light of the fact that Americans plainly distrust them. In fact, such a look would dovetail with a new look into the circumstances of 9/11.


* The 2004 presidential election result was very, very improbable, despite the fact that Democrats at the time did not feel strong enough to do anything much. However, their recent gains has a lot to do with the repeated exposes and warnings by a group of expert mathematicians and computer scientists. Such a travesty should never happen again. It is imperative that Congress deeply examine that particular election and recommend such prosecutions as warranted as well, as implementing ballot security safeguards.
See Professor Dennis Loo's page at http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html

A probe of this matter will take a degree of fortitude. Exactly who influenced the media to play possum prior to inauguration? Ask Jimmy Carter, he'll tell you a likely source of meddling.

9/11 and the crisis on the left

An elite corps of left-wing luminaries is moving to try to stem the influence of the 9/11 truth movement with the time-honored mantra that the "conspiracy theory" is drawing off too much energy that should be used for real leftist concerns.

Following in the footsteps of Noam Chomsky (see below) are Christopher Hayes, writing in the Nation, and Alexander Cockburn. All three make the same argument.

As the Democrats maneuver to decide what to do in Washington, we can expect to hear an increasing cacaphony of this kind of stuff. The aim: head off new investigations of the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks.

The problem for Chomsky et al are these points: more than a third of Americans think 9/11 was an "inside job"; more than half think there is a coverup of important facts concerning 9/11; and more than 57 percent are very concerned by intrusive post-9/11 surveillance laws and edicts.

Though I know of no poll concerning the beliefs of intellectuals concerning 9/11, I daresay the percentage of those who are convinced of conspiracy is far higher than the 36 per cent reported by a Scripps-Howard poll for the public at large.

So the hidden hand of the left, as represented by these leftwing icons, has the troublesome task of overcoming thes impressive political realities.

It should be noted that there was a core group of professionals who fought to get the truth out about the 2004 exit poll results. Though elements of the left did make some noises about election problems, there was no concerted effort to expose the massive election rip-off. However, the continued pressure from these experts eventually had a cumulative impact, which was reflected in the recent midterm results.

Appeal to physics, computer sci departments

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is known for its exacting approach to the physical sciences.

Yet, its report on the World Trade Center collapses has drawn fire as an attempt to get computer simulations to work as desired by an unreasonable tweaking of initial conditions.

Is the NIST report credible, or is it in actuality a political document with little scientific basis?

An excellent exercise for students and professors in physics and computer science departments would be to read, with careful note-taking, the NIST's main report and all the various back-up reports.
Also, those whose interest is in detection of scientific fraud are strongly encouraged to read the material.

Noted scientist pans 9/11 conspiracy theory

Noam Chomsky, a scientist who revolutionized the study of linguistics, takes the position that there is no credible evidence that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that 9/11 truth activists are draining energy from the serious left-wing.

This closely parallels statements he made in 1993 about the JFK assassination, a time when the CIA was balking at obeying a law requiring it to declassify and release documents concerning that slaying.

In October 2006, Chomsky said he was "not persuaded that much documentation and other evidence" of government coverup concerning 9/11 had been uncovered.

"To determine that," he said, 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 requisite backgrounds in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis;

[perhaps he overlooked physicists]

and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet

[unless one goes to the NIST web site].

In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers

[who were "absorbed" by the feds and did not publish their own study].

Or take a 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."

[Yet, the state uses the mass media as a propaganda arm, the scientist has said. However, apparently peer-reviewed media are exempt from clandestine pressure tactics.]

Chomsky continued, "One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away away from real, ongoing crimes of the state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up a world trade center would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

[So, Chomsky knows there is no credibility here. Does this mean he is an expert on the facts of 9/11 and has done adequate research? Or, is this an uninformed opinion?]

He said that "the 9/11 movement has been treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work."

[Is he saying the centers of power have been giving him a very, very bad time?, that he hasn't been treated tolerantly?]

In 2005, Chomsky said that "I think the Bush administration would have to have been utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests" and argued that serious evidence had not been provided to support the "oulandish" claims about an event that has "no remote historical parallel."

[Reichstag fire?]

In 1993, the scientist also said conspiracy theorists were damaging left-wing interests.

"Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination

[ignited by the Oliver Stone film "JFK" and the furor over release of intelligence records concerning the murder]

"I mean, I don't know who assassinated him and I don't care, but what difference does it make? It's not an issue of any general public interest. And there's a huge amount of energy and effort going into that. If somebody could show there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high-level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event."

Otherwise, the slaying was an insignificant event, like a murder in Hoboken, Chomsky said.

[The scientist doesn't know who killed JFK, but finds that the evidence points to a random criminal event. He's fairly sure there was no conspiracy because, he says, no policy changed. So high-level involvement hasn't been shown. This is somewhat akin to vouching for the Warren commission report based on the, essentially unproved, notion that there was no real change in the power structure.]

http://blog/zmag.org/node/2779
http://davidcogswell.com/Political/Chomsky_Interview_93.htm

Physicists challenge 9/11 tale

Here are some physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and engineers who have gone on record as challenging the official account of the collapses of the twin towers in New York on 9/11:

Steven E. Jones, PhD; Josh Mitteldorf, PhD; Frank Legge, PhD; John P. Costella, PhD; Derrick P. Grimmer, PhD; Bill Hammel, Phd, David Griscom, PhD, Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD, and Joanna Rankin, PhD.

Jones was a physics professor who was pressured to retire from Brigham Young University in a controversy over his online paper attacking the official theory of the collapses.

Rankin is a physics professor at the University of Vermont who is helping organize a drive to demand that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened.

Mitteldorf has taught math and physics at Ivy League schools and is currently concentrating on biological science. He was one of a group of statisticians, many affiliated with universities, who found that the nationwide exit poll discrepancies in the 2004 presidential election were highly improbable.

Working with Mitteldorf on ballot security issues was Griscom, a retired naval research physicist with more than 200 publications to his credit.

Jenkins is assistant director of Howard University's department of physics and astronomy and has been associated with NASA.

Hammel taught university math and physics before becoming disabled from a spinal problem.

Legge and Costella are physicists working in Australia.

A well-known mathematician who is a vocal critic of the official 9/11 account is A.K. Dewdney, PhD. Dewdney's math often has strong physical connotations. Some of these names can be found on his web site, 911physics.

Others with scientific backgrounds who oppose the official story are Timothy P. Howell, PhD, computer science, and Peter Phillips, PhD, a sociology professor and director of Project Censored at Sonoma State University. Howell is cited as having a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and residing in Sweden, but references are scanty. Charles Simpson, PhD, chairman of the department of sociology and criminal justice at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, has joined Rankin in a petition to have Burlington urge a new investigation of 9/11.

Also, Robert S. Boyer, a professor of mathematical philosophy [logic] and computer science at the University of Texas, and Joseph Phelps, who is a charter member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Also, Hugo Bachman and Jorg Schneider, two former structural engineering professors at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, have said the towers appeared to have been brought down by controlled demolition.

Further information on these experts is available via Google.

Other academics have also challenged the official story, but their degrees are not in mathematical sciences.

I have not checked the authenticity of every PhD claim, but there is no obvious reason to doubt any.

Also, it appears that one or two of these scientists are no longer speaking up.

9/11 denial: roots of totalitarianism

9/11 skeptics are sowing the seeds of mass paranoia, says Christopher Hayes of the Nation. Of course, he's not the first to irrationally link "conspiracy theorist" with the term "paranoia." It's quite easy to make this connection, since a manifestation of the mental condition of paranoi is belief in nonexistent conspiracies.

However, the generalized link is irrational in that the disease of paranoia does not preclude existence of real, dangerous conspiracies. That is, oft times "9/11 deniers" make the elementary logical error of saying that if A implies B then B implies A, which is often not so. The fact that paranoia implies belief in conspiracy does not mean that belief in conspiracy implies paranoia.

Any reasonable, educated person who does sufficient independent reading concerning the events of 9/11 will surely grow increasingly doubtful that the government is telling anything other than an audacious, bizarre fairy tale. How, such a reader may ask, can a government group imagine to get away with such a thing? And why are there so many poison pen specialists running interference for the government? he may wonder.

[I use the term "9/11 denial" as short-hand for those who, despite evidence and warnings to the contrary, heatedly reject the possibility of government conspiracy and heap scorn on doubters.]

After World War II, psychologists studied the roots of totalitarianism and identified what they called the authoritarian personality.

They found that totalistic regimes relied heavily on that element of the populace in need of psychic reassurance. Such people are characterized by excessive conformity, submissiveness to authority, intolerance, insecurity, superstition and rigid, stereotyped thought patterns.

One view was that an authoritarian personality had a fear of inner chaos, wherein repressed sexual impulses and other "forbidden" impulses were pressuring for a "way out." The fear of these impulses translates to a fear of chaos in the external world.
Dictators can help to prop up timid egos by providing a state-sponsored mind game, a vast charade that reassures this sort of mind that all is under control.

Also, as Hannah Arendt observed, modern totalistic regimes have devised a novel form of government: not only is the fear of terror used as a control rationale, but terror becomes a perverse system of governing, an end to itself.

So the use of terrorism as a rationale for power goes hand in glove with the appeal to the authoritarian personality. Hence, one can expect to find that persons with this sort of stunted development will lash out at those who disbelieve officialdom at a fundamental level. Political disbelief and skepticism is all right as long as it is "within bounds," that is, as long as it doesn't imply a fundamental lack trust.

After all, the authoritarian personality requires a strong father figure, or, short of that, at least a consoling belief that "higher authorities" are trustworthy. That is, if higher authorities aren't trustworthy, the secret, undefined, irrational dread is that chaos will set in, that sexual impulses will go wild, and so forth.

Of course, the authoritarian personality may manifest in a classic mode, such as the person who is easy fodder for anti-semitic propaganda. Yet, those who think of themselves as "advanced" politically may be suffering from the same disorder. For example, an ideological communist -- as opposed to an opportunist or careerist -- may well be striving for a uniform world as a reflection of a need to control his or her inner chaos.

Similarly, people who regard themselves as liberal are not immune from such a problem. That is, one may have been raised by parents who esteemed liberalism, so one may become culturally liberal, just as another might become a cultural Christian. They're used to it. They know the talk. They know the social rules of the game. BUT, is this liberalism superficial indoctrination, or does it reflect the values of a mature mind?

The reality is that the authoritarian personality is a widespread phenomenon and hence a political force that will be exploited by those who may have a similar dysfunction, the "control freaks" who are caught in the conflict of either being in powerful control of externalities, or fear of being an object of scorn at the bottom of the heap. Equality is not something such personality types can comprehend emotionally.

At any rate, the way forward through 9/11 denial is simply to recognize it for what it is and to resolve to stick with the truth as far as one can ascertain it.

Postcript to those who believe that I do not have the proper background to offer a psychological analysis: My reading in this area has been extensive and I once helped to write a psychology textbook. Those facts, however, do not qualify me as an expert. Yet, I have at least as much standing as those who so easily toss out the slander word "paranoia."

What is to be done

Unfortunate, but true, that even among academics involved in the quest for 9/11 truth, there is a lot of contradictory stuff.

Also, the quality of the research is highly variable, thus giving the government's defenders plenty of ammo.

However, a close inspection of the evidence presented by the government also reveals many contradictions, and low standards of research.

So what reputable scientist wants to jeopardize his or her reputation and career by getting involved in such a controversy, especially knowing that all sorts of unethical attacks and mean-spirited charges will be leveled at him or her? Very few.

Yet, the government's version of events cannot be allowed to stand, no matter how much pressure is used in its defense.

What is needed is for two or three scientists with good credentials to circulate a letter that says that scientists who have reviewed the NIST report on the tower collapses have found it to be deeply flawed and lacking in scientific merit. Forget the individual alternative scenarios for now. Just focus on the fact that the NIST report is not credible.

Hopefully, such a letter would be signed by numerous specialists in physics, mathematics, computer simulations and structural engineering.

This may seem a herculean task. Yet, a sizable group of highly qualified mathematicians and statisticians had the courage to sign a letter sharply questioning the validity of the 2004 presidential election based on their analysis of exit polls. And that letter gave credibility to those who warned of election rigging in the recent midterm elections, to the extent that polling changes and heightened watchfulness may well have contributed to the Democratic victory.

So, if such a plan is carried out with due caution with respect to 9/11, the tide may turn in this matter also.

We must believe that it is possible to overcome the smears, the disinformation and the shoddy work that is proliferating with respect to this matter.
Science is about logic. It may seem that logic cannot prevail against emotionalism. Yet we must believe that intellect can be used to overcome unprincipled emotionalism. Otherwise, why do science?

I am hoping that a core group of courageous physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists will accept the challenge and find sober, effective ways to put the spotlight on the grievous flaws in the government's 9/11 whitewash.

The letter I suggest would make a good start, I believe.

Carter: Israel apologists stifle media

Is there a not-so-hidden hand stifling debate in America on matters concerning Israel? Has the Israeli-Palestinian situation degenerated into an apartheid system?

Jimmy Carter makes these charges in a newspaper commentary and in his latest best-seller, "Peace Not Apartheid," which has ignited an angry outcry from a number of Jewish groups.

In Friday's Los Angeles Times, Carter wrote these words:

"The many controversies concerning the Palestinians and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated in Israel and throughout other nations -- but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the absence of any contrary voices."

The former president added that Congress cowers before the Israeli lobby and that news managers are overriding their own Middle East correspondents.

He said most critical rerviews of his book come from armchair Israelophiles who wouldn't deign to set foot in the disputed areas.

The hero of the Camp David peace accords is being reviled as a dangerous anti-semite, especially with respect to his characterization of the current state of Palestinian-Israeli affairs as a system of ethnic segregation similar to the old days in Dixie or to South Africa under all-white rule.

The former president's criticism implicitly covers many subjects that have been made taboo, such as the marginalization or ruin of news professionals who favor objectivity and even-handedness on Israel.

Also, the political timing indicates that the "war on terror" no longer chokes off all criticism of Israel and what Carter terms its abuses of human rights.

Today's New York Times story on the controversy appeared in the Arts section. ??

Israelis cite blog blocks
The blog and website of a provocative, right-leaning Israeli politician is under continual brownouts and blackouts by net servers, according to an email I received from a related site a couple of days ago (today is Dec. 18, 2006).

The email requested that, as a means of countering net censorship, I mention the site's name, which is http://www.samsonblinded.com/blog

The fact that the politician is Israeli does not mean his messages are not being supervised by those who are promoting a particular Israeli agenda, as delimited by AIPAC.

I of course am not promoting that site's viewpoint.

Another physicist scorns official 9/11 story

Another scientist sharply questions the credibility of the official government theory about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Josh Mitteldorf, an all-around scientist who has taught math and physics at Ivy League schools, charges that the "central fact is that the way in which the twin towers fell -- sudden, symmetric, with a rapidity that implies zero structural resistance -- is not consistent with airplane impact or localized fires."

Mitteldorf's public skepticism comes after Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physics professor, touched off a firestorm concerning his 9/11 doubts. Jones was eventually pressured to retire.

Mitteldorf previously challenged officialdom when he joined a network of statisticians who argue that a proper analysis of exit polls makes the 2004 presidential election result highly improbable.

In an op-ed piece of Dec. 9, the scientist criticized an uncomplimentary analysis of the 9/11 truth movement that appears in the latest edition of the Nation. Mitteldorf says the writer, an English professor named Christopher Hayes, misunderstands how science works when he dismisses the "physical minutae" brought out by 9/11 researchers.

Mitteldorf, who is affiliated with the University of Arizona's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, has varied interests, including computer science and physics. In 1987 he gained a PhD in physics from the University of Pennsylvania.

See http://911blogger.com/node/4941
http://mathforum.org/~josh/
http://thenation.com

The Nation's attack, titled "9/11: the roots of paranoia," tends to confirm my point that a hard-left conspiracy is backing the government's protection of traitorous moles who have bored from within.

The un-wiki nix, or Google agah gah

When I don't get nixed from Wiki, it's Google agah gah!

My backgrounder "Biotech and bioterror: a global dilemma" is linked by serious, professional web pages internationally.

Reason: most of them picked up the link from a Wiki page, and there's no self-censorship factor at work such that "serious" people won't touch specific subjects, such as 9/11 skepticism.

(Hopefully, the linkers at least scanned the bioterror article.)

Where's the 9/11 truth ribbon?

A recent Scripps Howard poll found that some 36 percent of Americans believe the government is covering up terrible truths about 9/11. Contrast that with a Zogby poll showing more than half of New Yorkers suspect conspiracy, and a recent poll by Canadian sociologists showing 57% of Americans are upset about post-9/11 intrusions into liberty.

YET, despite the proliferation of all sorts of magnetic ribbons for cars, I have never once seen a 9/11 truth ribbon anywhere.

I have a POW-MIA ribbon and a Statue of Liberty ribbon, but I've never run across a 9/11 truth ribbon to affix to my auto. I just scanned Google and found no entry for such a ribbon for sale or mentioned in any way.

Do you really think ribbon manufacturers think there's no money in such a ribbon? Clearly some force is intimidating free enterprise and blocking easy availability of this product. The blocks include restrictions on internet searches.

I daresay other blocks come in the form of veiled threats to those peons who might have the affrontery to believe there's a market for First Amendment-protected expressions of free speech.

Now you may say that 9/11 doubters are a bunch of fruitcake conspiracy theorists. And yet, what is your explanation for the lack of availability of a 9/11 truth ribbon? Mere coincidence that no one wants to tap a market that ranges across possibly a third of drivers?

U.S. bars cross-checks of 9/11 tale

One of these days, supposedly, alleged al Qaeda biggie Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be transported from a secret CIA prison overseas to the Guantanamo naval base, where he will face a special tribunal.

KSM, as the 9/11 commission denoted him, played a big role in the commission's narrative of the events leading up to 9/11. He reportedly gave CIA interrogators quite a bit of information on the 9/11 plot.

The panel admitted that the White House and CIA had prevented its investigators from questioning KSM directly. In fact, the probers had to rely on sanitized transcripts of what KSM purportedly told the CIA. Never mind reviewing videos of the interrogations.

Just take our word for it, said the CIA.

Well, maybe KSM deserved coercive techniques to sweat him for info; perhaps he even deserved the waterboarding treatment, whereby a victim is made to feel that he is on the verge of drowning (that's not torture, says the CIA). BUT, how reliable is his information?

True, at some points, the commission narrative expresses mild reservations as to KSM's credibility, but, the commission nevertheless relies on what he allegedly said to form its smooth storyline. When reviewing what KSM supposedly said, it's hard not to think that he was telling interrogators what they needed to hear so they could concoct a "plausible" narrative.

The point here is that the 9/11 panel rests a great deal of its case about what supposedly happened on unchallengeable statements made under duress in a secret location at secret times. Even the identities of the interrogators are secret.
There are few opportunities to cross-check such "evidence."

So much for the panel's credibility.

Perhaps KSM will get a "fair" tribunal, but we can guess that the rules of evidence will be restrictive to the point that the 9/11 panel's yarn isn't seriously challenged.

**************
BTW, I have looked at the two released surveillance tapes of the strike of the Pentagon. In one tape the object, apparently AA77, is at a slight, but significant angle coming into the frame from the right at treetop level or less; in the next frame, it hits the Pentagon.

In the other tape, the plane appears in one frame to be virtually horizontal to the ground, also at treetop level or less, before the strike.

Now that indicates some amazing aerobatic skill for someone who had never even flown a jumbo jet before.

How to knock out spam

Using new tricks to bypass filters, spammers have sharply increased the amount of spam coursing through the net, the New York Times reports in today's editions.

OK, now here's a way to fix the problem of unsolicited email:

Your email provider includes an option that automatically sends an incoming message to your junk mail box unless it has one of two recognition signals: either the sender's address is in your address book or the subject line includes a pre-arranged code word.

The reason for the second option is that you may wish to receive unsolicited mail from a certain pool of individuals. You might circulate the codeword informally; or your group might have a codeword system: say, your initials followed by a 1 followed by the first part of your email address, as in sam_spade_09110@yahoo.com gets codeword ss1samspade09011. In other words, members of your group would know how to formulate the proper codeword for your subject line.

Another possibility is to post a specific codeword on a home page. Though spammers might get wise, they would have to search home pages manually. Automated scanner programs would be defeated by telling your reader to use the codeword "s s 1 s a m s p a d e 0 9 1 1 0" but to not include the spaces. Or the codeword might be run down the page thus:
s
s
1
s
a
m
s
p
a
d
e
0
9
1
1
0

Or, if a pattern distortion program isn't available, a photo of the codeword drawn in a distorted but readable style could be included on the homepage.

Of course, a lot of people won't bother with such filters. So if they don't care, then more spam to 'em. Meanwhile, those who do care can eliminate all or most spam.

I should point out that Ztalk is the blog associated with my newsletter Znewz1, which is sent out unsolicited to media professionals.

Hopefully, media people who want to keep up with what's going on here will pass the word to read the blog. Then I won't have to worry about being a bad spam guy.

Why don't people simply subscribe to Znewz1 as they do to other newsletters? Yes indeed. Good question. Either the content is far below par or there is a force blocking those who would solicit the newsletter. Sometimes that force seems to emanate from the business office of the news organization in question. That is, the business office forbids the firm's news professionals from deciding for themselves whether they want to receive the newsletter by blocking it with a spam-bounce program. That shows that there are people who don't want editors and reporters to read my stuff.

And that tends to indicate that these people in the business office have associates in other business offices and in government offices who don't want news people to read my stuff.

This may sound somewhat speculative. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that the tendency to change my hit counters on some of my pages downward has a political motive. Fewer readers translates as less political influence. Likewise, the tendency to make references to my pages vanish from Google has the same purpose. A seeming lack of interest implies low political influence.

And a low subscription rate creates the impression of a lack of interest and low political influence.

I recall when Yahoo changed its rules to block "spam" at my level. The Znewz1 list has only a few hundred entries. But Yahoo was determined to limit its own list system, even when the list numbers indicated noncommercial material. The company imposed a block on a list of the length used by Znewz1.

So I broke up the list into smaller lists. A short time later a new limit showed up. There was a maximum number of emails I could send out in a day. Later Yahoo lowered the time interval to an hour or two (I forget). But, at any rate, I broke up the email lists between two Yahoo accounts with similar addresses. After that the folks at Yahoo started using pattern recognition programs to make sure the sender wasn't an automated program. Gee, they could have done that in the first place.

So now I use two accounts and haven't had a spate of changes that try to trim sending in quite some time. But I have experienced weird changes -- that occur haphazardly -- whereby Yahoo accounts refuse to transmit hyperlinks live, thus reducing readership potential, or that drop them from a forwarded message, thus killing readership potential. Perhaps things would go better if I switched to Yahoo beta. I've tried it, but it is annoyingly difficult to use with lists.

Also, my blogs on Google's Blogger, including this one, publish hyperlinks dead or alive, usually dead.

Oh yes. There once was an option on the Blogspot settings page to switch on a service that people who keep track of blog changes could use. That is, if someone wanted to be notified when a new post was published on Znewz1, they need only notify this service which would function if I gave permission.

You guessed it. That option has vanished from my Blogspot blogs.

The ending of that option, after I came to Blogspot, tends to reduce readership by busy professionals, of course.

Oh, one more point: I receive Google alerts for blog postings about 9/11. I have yet to be alerted to one of my own 9/11 posts (the mail and blog accounts are different).

Litvinenko's killers knew where MI5 wasn't

A sizeable team of assassins apparently shadowed Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent before he ingested a deadly dose of a radioactive substance, according to the Times of London.
So wouldn't that indicate that this hit squad was quite sure that MI5 or some other British security unit was not keeping a close watch on him? Considering how suspicious Russians -- and professional assassins in general -- tend to be concerning such things, it is unlikely they simply assumed that British watchers would not be present.
Or perhaps poisoning was seen as a means of bypassing any such surveillance. Yet, the killers seem to have had a pretty good understanding of what would be happening inside British security.