Latest Comments

• Authorities: Tiger Woods hurt in Fla. car crash

  Fri Nov 27, 2009
  • That's what I was thinking. I also read the airbags were not deployed, because the speed was too low. (Some more details here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-bk-tiger-woods-accident,0,1369881.story)

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • If a large percentage of witnesses report a specific phenomenon (explosions immediately preceding collapse), and that is not reported in the investigations, I consider that a rather large omission.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • Here is a more thorough analysis of all 503 fire fighter testimonies. 118, or nearly a quarter, of the testimonies describe explosions. The 9/11 Report, full of problems as it is, is not light on mentioning the explosions that occurred at the towers.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • Those explosions just were not bomb related. Yes, that's one theory. Saying it doesn't make it so. You do not know that for sure. Witnesses reported hearing explosions almost right after impact until the towers started falling. [...] you do not set off bombs randomly for over an hour

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • If a witness has vital testimony (as anyone who witnessed a bomb on 9/11 would have) then they would have been appropriately silenced until the trial was over or case was dismissed.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • The CIA had a working assumption before the first tower even fell and it was not bomb related. Yes, this. Exactly. You're suggesting that a "working assumption" is a valid reason to suppress evidence which conflicts with it. Which is absolute horseshit.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • I already conceded there's no way to verify this (maybe you missed it, it was in the part you quoted). Even if Mr. Isaac did say this, I still consider it a non-story unless another group of firefighters comes out saying the same thing. So I don't "want you to believe it". I don't care.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • Woolsey has eyes, so he knew that two planes flew into the towers. Ah yes, planes were indeed observed, so nothing else other than planes could possibly be involved, and we should ignore anything to the contrary. Got it.

• Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9/11 Firefighters (not to talk about the bombs in the buildings)

  Tue Oct 20, 2009
  • So, you start out by essentially accusing a First Responder of lying about the order, nice.

• White House admits: We 'control' news media

  Sun Oct 18, 2009
  • Rob, Blearc is absolutely correct. The quote says they control their communications; what information they release to the media. It's right there in black and white. Every government does this, what do you think the Press Secretary is for?