Marvelous. A link to share.

Wild when a comedian does hard news better than the hard news outlets..... this country has gone to hell in a political hand basket.

LucasAdvo,

This video was not created by the makers of The Colbert Report from Comedy Central. This was made by an independent journalist named James Corbett.

Not ready to condemn or call crazy on those who buy into this kind of thing. I am way past casting judgement on others.

For me, it is kind of like when an old friend reveals that he was once abducted by aliens. I mean, it could have happened and I still love the old friend no matter what.

"The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”

Albert Einstein --- Quoted by William Miller in Life Magazine, May 2,1955

So much we will never ever know...
And I see the USA descending into another McCarthy like era, of loyalty oaths, rabid isolationism, xenophobia, fear, ignorance and more lies. Also there is now poverty on a scale not seen since the great depression.
The economic division of our country financed by those who seek only more money and power is just awful.

Thank you, Jack!

It's been ongoing for ten years plus, portland native.

And the "Patriot Act" & secret FISA tribunals, my a$$, to boot.

Mojo,
This disintegration of our society has been happening since Ronald Reagan! Especially the economic division of super rich and working poor.

They forgot to mention that the television series The Lone Gunmen plot was about hijacking a airliner and flying it into the WTC. And it aired in April 2001 (Got a 7.7 Nielsen rating, with an 11 share, too.)

Long ago when Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute was accused of being a conspiracy buff he calmly replied, "Yes, I am; So you would be a coincidence buff?"

Superb five-minute piece. Thanks.

Here's a longer piece (2:19:03), with particular attention to 47-story Building 7, that somehow eluded mention among the 65 comments to Sunday's blog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

portland native,

Yes, but it all goes back to the beginning -- this "republic" never got off on the right foot, between legal institutionalized slavery and genecide against the indigenous peoples.

so true Mojo

If you're still caught up in the image of paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing malcontents check out a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
I believe there are around 1,500 of them ready to tell you how the official pancake story can't possibly be true, with special emphasis on the free-fall portions of the Building 7 videos.
If you really want to get into it, check out some of the projectiles that appear to shoot out the side of the Towers and then mysteriously change direction in midair as if a secondary explosive has just gone off.
It's your call though. One thing I've heard is that it would be wrong to dishonor the memories of the 9/11 victims with talk like this. But unfortunately for that argument, it's often the families of the 9/11 victims who are calling loudest for a new investigation.

For me, it is kind of like when an old friend reveals that he was once abducted by aliens. I mean, it could have happened and I still love the old friend no matter what

Questioning authority is like being abducted by aliens? Wha?

It reminds me of when it was shown, in authenticated documents and audio, that Nixon had lied and been involved in the Watergate affair. Thousands of citizens polled still refused to believe it. Many thought Nixon's resignation was the result of being forced out by political opponents bent on ideological control.

Or, if you like:
"The most convincing lies are the most outrageous ones. If one seeks to subvert a cause, waste no time on small affairs, but rather pronounce one Great Lie and stick to it."--Benjamin Franklin

Genocide (sp.), that is -- Was in mano a mano with a spastic autocorrect.

The antisocial far-right 'fringe' (mentally unstable) example, Lars Larson, never recognizes he sounds phony and empty every time he goes so all-out 'nationalistic Supremacist', pretending he "thanks you, for your service fighting for our freedoms" if someone tells him they were military-trained to be closed-minded.

Larson is so stupid he does not see this -- no, not Jack's linked video, this: After Bush was installed by the kangaroo Supreme Court, (rigging him in position, in advance, ready and set after the already-then-scheduled Nine-Eleven Op, for him as POTUS to block and cover-up investigations and questions afterward -- awfully obvious in hindsight), since Bush military Supremacism began, the more the military has 'fought,' the less freedom Americans have.

Yeah, right, 'fighting for our freedoms.' Hey Pentagon powercrazies: Stop 'protecting' our freedoms. We don't have any left.

Since N.E.O.

-
A close friend in Boston is in a college class this semester and has told me many 'insider' details of the character of the professor, who was gung-ho career-military man out of West Point and 22 years up the ranks before he was discarded like a worthless tissue. Professor Bacevich wrote a personal account of his epiphany the day he realized everything the military Supremacists had told him for 40 years, (and has told Americans for 70+ years), is all lies. Here:
The Unmaking of a Company Man: An Education Begun in the Shadow of the Brandenburg Gate, Andrew Bacevich, Huffington Post, Posted: August 26, 2010.

By temperament and upbringing, I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy. In a life spent subject to authority, deference had become a deeply ingrained habit. I found assurance in conventional wisdom. Now, I started, however hesitantly, to suspect that orthodoxy might be a sham. I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high -- whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops -- is inherently suspect. The powerful, I came to see, reveal truth only to the extent that it suits them. Even then, the truths to which they testify come wrapped in a nearly invisible filament of dissembling, deception, and duplicity. The exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor.

I came to these obvious points embarrassingly late in life. “Nothing is so astonishing in education,” the historian Henry Adams once wrote, “as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts.” Until that moment I had too often confused education with accumulating and cataloging facts. In Berlin, at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate, I began to realize that I had been a naïf. And so, at age 41, I set out, in a halting and haphazard fashion, to acquire a genuine education.

If you liked learning the truth in the video, maybe there is extra credit where you also enjoy this:
You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story, by Jesse Richard, TVNewsLIES.org, September 2, 2011

Popular Mechanics put out an article (now a book) that debunked the conspiracy theories. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Now as for AFTER September 11, 2001, the nation was certainly manipulated and lied to by the President at the time and his administration. Those facts are well-known and easily authenticated.

But as for the conspiracy theories around September 11, 2001 itself, believing them is the same as believing Obama was born in Kenya.

The only difference between these two ridiculous conspiracy theories is that one is beloved of the far left, the other of the far right.

More proof the political spectrum is, in fact, a horseshoe. The extremes are closer to each other than to the center.

Popular Mechanics? That's good enough for you -- it was in Popular Mechanics? Wow. I think Mad magazine said Oswald acted alone.

Hey, Gordon -- WTC 7 was imploded. Just look at the video. Imploded. We can talk about the rest, but there's no way that building wasn't "pulled." When the demolition was set up, and by whom, and for what reason, I haven't a clue. But that building didn't just fall that way because there was a fire going on inside it. Somebody's lying about something.

Popular Mechanics answers its critics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

And I'll take Popular Mechanics as a source over the conspiracy theorists any day.

Gordon, the official story on WTC 7 is full of it. Even your Popular Mechanics people couldn't give it with a straight face -- they fudge left and right. That one's a no-brainer -- somebody's lying.

Before the collapse, the guys whose name I can't recall but who are the top-rank demolition experts, tried to get through to NYC 9-1-1 (calling from Maryland, I think) to warn that the tower was ready to collapse. They did not get through in time.
So whatever other people saw to make them suspect the plane and fire did not knock cause the collapse, the people who make their living blowing up buildings saw it coming.

That seems to dispose of a major piece of the conspiracy theory "evidence."
And the video poking fun at the brains behind the tower attacks fails to note that Bin Ladin's plan was to lure the US into a war on his turf. Wars that cost a lot of lives and tons of money.
He may be dead, but his plan is still working.

Mad Magazine was always ahead of the curve and Oswald did act alone.

Lots of holes in this "report". Here's an obvious one. The most heavily defended airspace? Hardly. In 2001, were there any SAM sites inside the US at that time? Doubtful. The US didn't keep fighter's on the tarmac armed to defend against an air attack nor in the air at all times. It's a myth that it's easy to intercept a plane. Recall a year ago, 2 F15's were sent to Seattle because a small plane violated Air Force One airspace. It took the F15's 10 minutes to get there, 180 miles, going supersonic. On 911, the F16's launched, had 105 rounds and no missiles. The plan was to ram flight 93, if they could find it. http://news.yahoo.com/f-16-pilot-ready-ram-hijacked-plane-9-194138786.html

The most heavily defended airspace? Hardly.

Seriously, you haven't a clue--or you misunderstand how air defense works. Five minutes of investigation would show you just how well-defended that airspace is, by manned craft, surveillance, and ground-based defense. Jerking off about the term "most heavily" is a nice try, but you're intentionally avoiding the fundamental point.

The US didn't keep fighter's on the tarmac armed to defend against an air attack nor in the air at all times.

That's stunningly wrong. They did before 2001 in that area, and do now.

It's a myth that it's easy to intercept a plane.

Really? Prove that, because it's done all the time. After 2001, it's been done dozens of times, including several times within less than 5 minutes from detection to visual contact.

Here's a test of your theory--it turns out the problem of the flight that supposedly crashed to the ground in PA was known about for over half an hour. I wondered what happened?

In 2001, were there any SAM sites inside the US at that time?

Recall a year ago, 2 F15's were sent to Seattle because a small plane violated Air Force One airspace. It took the F15's 10 minutes to get there, 180 miles, going supersonic.

Which has nothing to do with the NYC/Dulles/etc. airspace. Do you not actually know why and how that airspace is protected?

And I'll take Popular Mechanics as a source over the conspiracy theorists any day.

Would you take it as a "source" over 1,573 registered architects and engineers?

Let me guess--these are all crackpots, right? Fringe theorists. Know-nothings.

God, I'm sick of an ignorant, fearful, protect-my-worldview-at-all-costs society of "patriots".

The fundamental tenet of democracy is that power rests in the PEOPLE, not the military or government or the President.

The fundamental tenet of a free society is that the people are FREE TO QUESTION what goes on in that society--to challenge it, change it, fight to keep it free to all.

When did democracy and a free society devolve into a mind-numbingly stupid marginalization of those who stand up and challenge things? In case you've forgotten THOSE ARE THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT GOT YOU A COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Not thinly-veiled fundamentalist "teabaggers", not people who say "let them die" to people who can't afford to acquire health care, not people who say "God will punish those who do not salute the flag", but PEOPLE WHO STAND UP AND CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO.

Guess what? You're part of that status quo, and you're afraid of any discomfort. Get used to it, folks, because discomfort is part of democracy.

What individual, independent primary research did the "registered architects and engineers" do? What peer-reviewed journals have published them? Or is this like the global warming thing where everyone just signs a petition?

OWM, Show us your 5 minutes of "research"... You have 5 minutes to find it and 5 minutes to type. Clock is ticking....

OWM says "The US didn't keep fighter's on the tarmac armed to defend against an air attack nor in the air at all times."

Hmmm. I provided data related to that. Here it is again. http://news.yahoo.com/f-16-pilot-ready-ram-hijacked-plane-9-194138786.html

The pilot admitted that she was ordered to take off with 105 rounds in her gun and no missiles. Her plan was to RAM flight 93.

When AFO's airspace was violated, the launched F15's from PDX. Ahem.. Maybe no one ever explained to you that "launched" means the planes had to take out from the ground first, before they could intercept the plane that was violating AFO's airspace.

There's two examples for you.

The pilot admitted that she was ordered to take off with 105 rounds in her gun and no missiles. Her plan was to RAM flight 93.

Uh huh. And the other 80+ military attack aircraft in the vicinity? What was their official status?

When AFO's airspace was violated, the launched F15's from PDX. Ahem.. Maybe no one ever explained to you that "launched" means the planes had to take out from the ground first, before they could intercept the plane that was violating AFO's airspace.

Let me clue in you in even further. Or better yet, let me make it simple: do you believe that the President's plane flies across the country unescorted? You have five minutes. The clock is ticking.

(Fairplay), I don't know if by an architect or engineer, yet you yourself can prove more than 100 times extra Energy ejected out of the Twin Towers than gravity's energy could squish in the buildings. (Mass X half-Height X Gravity)

What was the Force of the ('pancaking' ha!) collapse? What was the Force of Mt. St. Helens eruption? Where did the news media get the number they reported (for Mt.St.Helens)?

Why didn't news media give any Force number for Nine-Eleven Op 'eruptions'? Especially considering that the local high school Science teacher could calculate that Force.

So can you. Follow the homework assignment example, HERE. Simply: Gravity force had 150,000 (KWH) units of Potential energy in a Tower, and caused(?) 10,000,000 units of Kinetic energy to erupt out of the 'collapse'. 150,000 KWH in, 10,000,000 KWH out.
Huh? I mean, hmmmmm . . .

Nevermind the fuel, fire, duration, extent numbers which distract people into looking at the micro level of floor-by-floor dynamics (speculation). Gravity Potential energy is at least 4 orders of magnitude more Force than the inconsequential fires (or any supposed 'fuel storage'). Fire burns buildings up, Gravity pushes buildings down. Or, okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the premise is fire 'softened' or even 'severed' 100 stories of hot steel; so what is Gravity going to do about it? A.: No more, no less (than 'hard' cold steel of same mass and same height-above-ground-level).

100 times more Force came out of the Towers than is accounted for -- "Gravity did it" -- in the Official Legend of N.E.O. 'Officials' cannot cover up that eruption.

You can know for certain by your own inspection that 'Officials' are lying. You can know without having to have been there and without having to believe eye-witness versions and claims to have been there. Justice Dept indictments and Court trials can know by admissible expert Science testimony, (by professional architects, engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and more).

The false-told 'gravity force' of the Tower implosions is only one impossibility in the liars-'Officials' story tale. Here is a list of twenty more, ranging from unbelievable to impossible. It's a compilation of the stongest debunks (of Official Legend) collected during 10 years by Jim Fetzer, who was somehow involved in starting 9/11 Truth movement. So this is Truthers' best stuff.

20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong, by Jim Fetzer, September 10th, 2011, (at Veterans Today .COM where vets congregate and talk about their thoughts ... 'frag the Pentagon')
Pay special attention to Reason number 9, with the 3-minute video about the massive extra Force required to make a dust cloud, more than Gravity's force to 'push a building over.'

And 'big picture' again, the overall (population, especially the under-30 crowd) number is increasing of people who think/know the N.E.O. Legend is propaganda lies through-and-through. That growing number is why it is called a 'movement'. The number of people whole-hog believing the Nine-Eleven Op Legend is decreasing, shrinking back. (Action is underway to arrest Dubya Bush October 20th in Canada where he is scheduled to give a speech; so now he probably is going to shrink back and not go. He already cancelled a speech in Switzerland for the same reason: Notified of plans to arrest him on arrival.)
And this, quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson:
There are only two political Parties, the Party of the Past and the Party of the Future -- the Establishment and the Movement.

One more, I'm sorry, but this is so GREAT. I'm not looking for these things, I swear they're just littered all over the landscape in the aftermath of N.E.O. Xth Anniversary.

Before he became a convert to liberal sensibility, this Republican darling got a lot of media ink and airtime for his thoughts.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary U.S. Treasury [for Reagan, invented 'supply-side economics'], Associate Editor Wall Street Journal, Columnist for Business Week, Senior Research Fellow Hoover Institution Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy in the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D, .C. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.

He still cuts a wide swath of political influence, leaving doctrinaire rightwingers either running away from confrontation or else vaporized in his afterburner. Where does he appear in the media now? Any. Where. He. Wants. To. and he doesn't want the usual corporate-dictated 'mainstream' media. He wants to prosecute Bush/Cheney, mainly for giving 'Republicans' a bad name.

And here he takes the opponents of '9/11 Truthers' to task, and ever so gently and tactfully bloody smashes their noses bent out of shape and rubs their fearing faces in their own foolish words. But sweetly, and with the fairness of moderation.

9/11 Truth critics: Do they have a case?, By Paul Craig Roberts, September 16, 2011

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against the truthers ....