Vote For the Best of Tucson

The Tucson Weekly's annual "Best of Tucson" is wrapping up June 4th. This year, the very first category is "Best Local Blog." You can have three guesses why I might be mentioning these facts, but BlogForArizona readers will only need one. You have to fill out at least 20 categories to submit your ballot, so have in mind some things you really like (besides this blog) before you start.

New posts will continue to appear below, so scroll on down for fresh bits...

Comments

[James A. Bretney]

I voted for you twice. Best blog and best goth shop

[J.T. Waldron]

It is likely that this is the best blog in Tucson, but that's not necessarily a good thing. I see no coverage of the current hunger strike in front of Senator McCain's office for 911 Truth.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15873

If somebody were on a hunger strike in front of Senator McCain's office for something the fraud of 911 was intended to justify, somehow I feel I can predict it would appear here.

Another significant strike against the establishment was a recent protest of Gabrielle
Gifford's fundraiser last April. No coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2jrap_ct1U

So a request for us to vote for your blog should come with some constructive criticism.

The impression we carry away sometimes is that some subjects are taboo and violate peoples' newer "religions". Just as the "war on terror" is a religion in itself to some people, so is the Democratic Party to others. Both religions will continue killing people.

Coverage of the election integrity trial alone put's you way ahead of anything out there. Certainly better than the Tucson Weekly's blog. Ironic to be seeking validation through that rag. Things will change.

[x4mr]

Off topic, but are you the same JT Waldron that helped a guy make a movie about an epidemic 16 years ago?

[mbryanaz]

J.T., if I gotta be a 9/11 truther to get your vote, then I'll pass. I will point out that I actually was at the protest in front of Gabby's fund-raiser in person, though not for the same reason as the truthers. And I did cover that protest.

And I don't need nor seek "validation" from the Weekly; I seek "publicity" for our blog to the Weekly's readers, many of whom would also be interested in reading our blog if they knew about it.

[J.T. Waldron]

Sorry if I missed the coverage of Giffords. I must have missed it on the RSS feeds. Got a link?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "911 Truther". Perhaps it's a suggestion that there are no questions to ask concerning 9/11 and those that have any questions at all are "911 Truthers".

That seems to be the only threshold for choosing no coverage of someone having an actual hunger strike in front of McCain's office. Even if you buy all that's in the 9/11 Commission report (which I honestly doubt) it's still O.K. to acknowledge that there are people who challenge the 911 Commission Report and that they are willing to oppose the Neo-Con's who endorse the report. That wouldn't make you a "911 Truther".

And if you don't mind (for what it's worth) you still have my vote for best blog in Tucson.

The Tucson Weekly's popularity is indeed a sad thing. We need at least another printed publication to compete with them.

[J.T. Waldron]

x4mr: If I recall that was to help promote a brilliant full length feature script. Any luck with that?

[Liza]

J.T., I watched the YouTube video about Giffords that you linked to. I think it is sad for CD8 that she was the Democratic candidate, but I would like to know one thing that she said or did prior to the election that made her current position on Iraq and Bush's other foreign policy in the Mideast less than predictable.

If CD8 Democrats want intelligent representation, then perhaps they should promote candidates with a record of accomplishment in something other than tire sales and property management.

The people at Discount Tires are always really helpful when I need tires. I just never made the association that they should represent me in Congress.

Interesting video, however.

[James A. Bretney]

J.T.,

I am curious what 9/11 truth is there that needs to be clarified?

Was 9/11 an inside job?

Did Moussad blow up the buildings on purpose?

Where any ATF officers among the 9/11 dead?

How did the airplanes find thier way into the towers?

Do you believe in aliens? Global Warming?

Will there be any coverage when any of the 9/11 Truthers die of the hunger strike? Please let me know so I can hand out sweets.

Thank you

[J.T. Waldron]

Liza: While I can't speak for the frustrated Democrats/volunteers that worked the dialog for impeachment with Giffords and her staff, I can refer to their edited video of their exchange with Maura Policelli, the head of Gifford's staff. Although she actually looks worse in the unedited footage, this following link does offer some insight into the expectations of disappointed CD8 Democrats:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2544465859169991271&q=maura+policelli&ei=nXJDSN7DLYyQrAOLtaj6CA&hl=en

I can note that Giffords did state the need to execute a war as a last resort during her campaign. Another impression seems to be that she would not pursue the same folly as her predecessors. In reality, she continues to fund war crimes and, according to some accounts, she's never seen a defense bill she didn't like.

With 911 Truth, I can attest to the information presented to Gifford's staff. We presented David Ray Griffith's "The New Pearl Harbor", "Debunking 911 Debunkers", Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth's info, "911 Mysteries", Norman Minetta's testimony, the $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta by the head of Pakistani Intelligence, and Kevin Ryan's account of the tests of the World Trade Center steel performed by United Underwriters.

Ron Barber, one on Gifford's local staff, stated that he instead deferred to the 911 Commission Report and Popular Mechanics. This is perhaps the single largest exercise in willful ignorance I have seen in my life.

This refusal to reckon with 9/11 combined with their refusal to pursue impeachment is why I was out in front of the Fox Theatre on April 11th.

[J.T. Waldron]

James A. Bretney:

A quick way to cut to the chase is to simply ask, "do you deny that there was molten steel in the basements of all three buildings?" That's all we need to know. Not only is there credible witness testimony, video footage and satellite imagery demonstrating the existence of molten steel, there are samples of molten steel recovered from the site.

If you deny this, then you have embarked upon a religion.

Here's what's worse:

If you have so much contempt for people who are willing to risk death for their convictions, you've already become the poster child for what's wrong with this country.

[James A. Bretney]

Mr. Waldron,

Do you love your country?

Second, what does molten steel have to do with anything? I saw two planes collide into two buildings.

Now why don't answer the rest of my questions and I will most certainly answer yours.

[Liza]

J.T., I watched the video in its entirety, the whole hour. Oh, my gosh. I am totally unimpressed by this Maura Policelli, the Giffords chief of staff. She speaks volumes and says close to nothing. This just reinforces my belief that these people are in way over their heads. They are on some kind of steep learning curve at a time when we needed people who could hit the ground running.

The frustration of the attendees is apparent and understandable. They came to this meeting well prepared and they received no answers.

[Jeff Latas]

I guess I would consider myself a 9/11 Truther in the same way I always want to know the truth. I know that many of you have seen my presentation on American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon.

I earned my BS in Aerospace Engineering from the U of A. I worked in the Pentagon for nearly four years a Weapons Requirement Officer, working on the new developmental weapons of the time to include any military weapon used on destroy building structures. I actually rode my bike to work on nearly the identical ground path that aircraft made and would pass in front of the impact site near the helo-pad. I’m familiar with the structure and the offices in much of the Pentagon. I was also completing my MPA at this time.

I have over 4,000 hours as a USAF fighter pilot and instructor pilot. I have nearly 5,000 hours as a commercial airline pilot and captain. I understand the complexity of operating airliners and understand how our air defense system was working on 9/11. I also have experience in participating in the types of military training exercises that were being conducted on 9/11.

I’m also a USAF Accident Investigator, where I have served as a Board President. I have spend a considerable amount of time doing research on American Flight 77 and with the help of Pilots for Truth, have found that the Digital Flight Data Recorder does not match the 9/11 Commission Report analysis.

No one seems to want to answer why, to include the NTSB and the FBI. Many of the procedures, required by law, which the NTSB and FBI are required to complete after an aircraft incident were not carried out.

Whether you consider yourself a Truther or not, this one little part that horrible day needs further investigation. The truth I seek is whether the FDR was flawed or was the 9/11 Commission report erroneous? If it’s the FDR that is flawed, then why aren’t we making an issue about problems with an instrument that records vital forensic evidence? FDR information has resulted in huge dividends in public safety by providing the information to make corrective action in the airline business. If it’s the 9/11 Commission Report, then there is much bigger problem our country faces.

Those who saw my presentation on Flight 77 at Drinking Liberally know that I find many aspects of the 9/11 commission report consistent. Most eyewitness reports, the many pictures I have studied, the column damage, the impact points of the aircraft, most all is consistent with the 9/11 report. But the legal investigation of the 9/11 incident sites has not been completed and therefore further investigation is required by law.

Mike, you have my vote as the number one blog. I encourage you to be open to further investigation into 9/11 when warranted.

[James A. Bretney]

Mr. Latas,

I question again why you seek to give political cover to man whose political beliefs only bend to the most aberrant of minds. AzBlue, did a blog about demagoguery. Though I disagreed with his conclusions, democratic peoples must be vigilant against such threats by which you appear to be seduced. Again, I applaud Meanie's vigilance and Bryan's judgment.

Please outline specifically our concerns about the truth of the bipartisan 9/11 report which was no friend to the Bush Administration.

[mbryanaz]

I certainly believe further investigation is warranted, if only to address the many concerns of citizens, omissions of the commission, and inconsistencies in the official version of events. Clearly, a lot of people feel that we don't have a sufficiently thorough account, and I agree with that. I just don't like piling new poor assumptions upon old poor assumptions, as the 911 truth movement is apt to do.

But given that the executive director of the commission staff (which controlled the agenda and wrote the report) was Philip Zelicow, the idea that the commission was "no friend" to the Bush Administration is total hogwash. The commission report would have claimed Gore crashed the 9/11 planes personally, if Bush had wanted.

[Jeff Latas]

Mr Bretney,

Maybe it's me, but I'm not sure who you're referring about political cover. Most of my study on 9/11 has been on Flt 77. The FDR information was released as part of a FOIA request. The raw data and a CSV file of the FDR were given and analyzed. It does not match the official 9/11 report. The ground track, the pitch angle, the altitude, the rate of decent, and the impact angle of incidence are all off and well outside the required tolerance of accuracy for a Digital Flight Data Recorder when compared to the official 9/11 Commission Report. I would like other questions answered; one is why weren’t the aircraft parts identified specifically to the aircraft, a requirement that the NTSB must do during an investigation. A FOIA request was sent to the FBI asking that specific question since the NTSB has passed the ball to them, and the response is very evasive as if they did not do this and now the evidence is most likely destroyed.

I will also say that when I look at the physical impact area, seen in photographs, the physical damage is consistent with the 9/11 report for Flt 77.

The 9/11 Commission lacked expertise in specific fields of investigations. Most were politically appointed to the commission. More investigation is not only needed, but still required. Let’s have experts conduct them, not the political hacks from either party.

[James A. Bretney]

I stand by my statement. There comes a point where one really must stop quibbling over nonsense. Mr. Bryan, your argument about Zelicow is nonsense.

A republican headed the commission. So what? Are all republicans completely without ethics? The former Lee Hamiliton was on that commission. He issued statements no doubt independent of the 9/11 commission. Mr. Bryan, can you see the forrest in the trees? The 9/11 commission said that previous Administrations Republican and Democrat needed to do more about strengthening our intelligence appartus and share intel across the board. That is the meat and potatoes of thier report. I question your motives at making the report appear more sinister than it is.

More importantly there are those out there that will never be happy and no amount of evidence will suffice. Thus it is the responsibility of good citizens, Mr. Latas, to ignore their pestering cacophony not legitimate chaos by adding adding to the noise disparate and tangential data.

Does Mr. Waldron or his cohorts acknowledge this as a terrorist act such as Al Queda or do they agree with Ahmedinejad, that this was an inside job?

What about Flight 77 aka the Pentagon bird? I got it you have questions about the black box and the FBI isn't cooperating (big surprise - a huge bureaucracy is not complying with a citizen's request). But what does it prove? Did Flight 77 get shot down? If it was shot down, then why did it deviate from its flight path and take a big U-ey? What about the phone calls made by the stewardesses?

In conclusion Democrats, you people have to make a decision about what kind of people you want this country to be. You can be the party of Chaos, deviancy and anarchy. You can weaken America in pursuit of an elusory utopia. Or you can be the party of the working man, human rights and standing up to tyrants in the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

[Jeff Latas]

Mr Bretney,

If you want me to jump to a conclusion about what REALLY happened to Flt 77, I will not do that. I pride myself in the ethics of accident investigations, which is not to speculate until all facts are known. I do not have all the facts and will not speculate. Because I take this position of not speculating, I draw fire from both sides on this issue. We all should stick to the facts. Trust me, I have seen a lot of evidence, and the FDR is truly factual evidence. To bad you wish to ignore this.

Facts is, the FDR does not match the 9/11 Commission Report. Fact is, the physics at impact area is consistent with the 9/11 Report (my opinion). Fact is, the NTSB and FBI never completed required investigations.

What does this prove; only that a question remains unanswered, is the FDR flawed (which deserves action due to public safety issues) or is the FDR accurate, meaning the 9/11 Commission Report is false (do you really want to go there). I think these are important enough to keep in the public eye. Do you think the flying public deserves to have accurate FDRs to provide essential data to prevent future mishaps?

[Jeff Latas]

Oh, just so you know, the proper term is Flight Attendent or Inflight Crewmember, not stewardesses.

[James A. Bretney]

Listen up sweetie,

I'll use whatever terms I want to describe what I see.

stewardess
stewardess
stewardess
stewardess

Your point is that the FDR data doesn't match the 9/11 commission report. So what? What does it prove except maybe the investigators weren't qualified to judge what happened or perhaps the instruments weren't caliberated.

Who cares? I mean besides you and the rest of the truthers?

Much ado
Much ado

Sweetie, you keep this up and you will prove yourself a demogogue and dangerous.

[Liss]

I'd buy a ticket to see James Bretney call Jeff Latas "sweetie" to his face. Wow, how childish.

It's pretty clear, James, that you have no idea that you are outgunned: intellectually, logically, and in terms of maturity.

Do you understand that if the intruments weren't properly calibrated on those airplanes we should all be worried about the safety of air travel? Do you understand that a discrepancy between FDR data and an official report of how a plane went down is unprecedented? That it strongly suggests criminality on the part of whoever interpreted the FDR data and whoever arrived at the conclusions in the 911 Report?

Do you not understand that the metal of those girders in the World Trade Centers melts at a heat far beyond that of jet fuel? That thermate residue was found in the wreckage, and that thermate is a compound used in controlled demolition?

If you would like to learn the science behind this, I'd be happy to provide you with information. You might also want to take a long, hard look at the caliber of people who are asking for further investigation into 911 (including Jeff Latas). This might help educate you:

www.patriotsquestion911.com

Of course, you may have more expertise and knowledge than Jeff Latas, or Andreas Von Bulow (former German Defense Minister), or the 130 senior military and intelligence officials (some of whom served in past US administrations), or David Shayler of Britain's M15, all of whom question the official 911 Report...

but I rather doubt it, sweetie.