Michael D Brown

In a column entitled Going Mad in Herds, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes:

The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy. The unbottled anger and suspicion concerning ground zero show that many Americans haven’t flushed the trauma of 9/11 out of their systems — making them easy prey for fearmongers.

Little did I realize that my opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque (a term I will continue to use despite the Associated Press' desire to change it to Park51 or something) was because I had failed to flush the trauma of the 9/11 attacks from my system.  Perhaps a new stimulus package would be for all opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque to get therapy for their trauma, then the world would be OK. Stuart Smalley (aka US Senator Al Franken) could introduce the spending bill to pay for all of our therapy.

Maureen, get serious.  This isn't about trauma.  I'm over the trauma.  But, I'm not over the fact we were attacked on that date in 2001.  I remember it well.  And, I don't claim that Islamists don't have a Constitutional right to build their mosque at 51 Park if they can get the appropriate permits for construction. Mosques, synagogues, churches, temples, are all denied building permits every day in this country, and no one complains.  My complaint is not that they don't have a "right" to build there, they do.  My objection is that it is not appropriate to build there out of sheer consideration for the victims.  

In case you've forgotten about those victims of that horrendous day, take a look at the following:

I say don't build the mosque for this reason, the falling man.  

Put yourself in the position of the family of this man, who has made the decision to take control of his death. He refuses to die in the heat and suffering of the building from the attacks of that day.  Instead, he chooses to control that death by leaping from Tower One. Do you call him part of the "herd" you refer to? 

No, Maureen, we're not herds, we're not reacting to fear, or ignorance, or some trampling of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  We're reacting to basic human decency.  Have you none?

On numerous occasions I have been accosted in airports or other places by people who will recognize me and want to ask how I can continue to support those who claim 9/11 was an attack by al Qaeda and not an inside job perpetrated by the so-called Bush-Cheney cabal.  

My terse response to them is usually goodbye, as I have no time for such stupidity.  Those times when I actually do engage with one of these "9/11 truthers" I will calmly explain that having been inside the federal government at the highest levels, specifically during the 9/11 attacks, I have witnessed the sheer inability of the government to maintain a conspiracy of that magnitude because of the number of people involved.  Invariably these truthers will then recount different articles or stories about explosives, implosion physics, videos and other ostensible "evidence" of the conspiracy or "inside job."

Dr. Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine and editor of skeptic.com, has published an article on TrueSlant which further debunks the conspiracy theorists.  While not always agreeing with everything Dr. Shermer has published in the past, his systematic rebuttal of the 9/11 Truthers' basic arguments is a good read and provides great evidence to counter those who still believe that somehow, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were Masters of the Universe and capable of creating, instigating and maintaining a conspiracy that would have involved individuals from the White House to United Airlines to carry off this fantastic attack.

Here, in full, is Dr. Shermer's article from TrueSlant:

Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 “truthers,” who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack, the “truthers” have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about Al Qaeda and bin Laden taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for 7/7, or Lisbon, or the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s, but on specific “anomalies” in the collapse of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html

The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.

For example, on the issue of the melting temperature of steel, according to 911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees Fahrenheit. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. (This claim is made by Jim Hoffman,in his book Waking Up From Our Nightmare and on his web page http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/text/index.html.) Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, M.I.T. engineering professor Dr. Thomas Eager explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and spreading the fire throughout the building; temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag, straining and then breaking the angle clips that held them to the vertical columns; once one truss failed, others failed, and when one floor collapsed (along with the ten stories above it) onto the next floor below, that floor then gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered the 500,000-ton building to collapse.

Conspiricists also argue that if the buildings had collapsed due to the impact of the planes, they should have fallen over on their sides. This is also wrong. With 95 percent of each building consisting of empty space (these were office buildings after all), they could only have collapsed straight down—there simply isn’t enough structural support integrity to take an entire building down in one piece.

Conspiracy theory buffs—in direct contradiction of the above claim—also believe that the buildings fell straight down into their own footprint, which, they say, could only have happened if they had been deliberately brought down by explosive charges carefully and deliberately set ahead of time. Not true. The buildings did not fall down perfectly straight. Their collapse began on the side where the planes impacted, and so were tilted slightly toward that weakened collapse point.

Another conspiracy claim is that the buildings fell from the top down, precisely in the manner that controlled demolition buildings collapse. False. Controlled demolitions are done from the bottom up, not the top down. If you search “building demolition” on YouTube you will find hundreds of video clips of buildings collapsing by controlled demolition from the bottom up.

For our special 9/11 issue of Skeptic (https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=c87b04f1741b6411293eee53ccfedc39&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SS&Product_Code=magv12n4&Category_Code=BI) we consulted a demolition expert named Brent Blanchard, who is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. Since the rise in popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he too has been inundated with requests to explain why the buildings appeared to have “collapsed as if by a controlled demolition.” (Blanchard’s entire analysis may be found on the Website he edits: www.implosionworld.com) Blanchard and his team of experts at Protec have worked with all major American demolition companies and many foreign ones to study the controlled demolition of over 1,000 of some of the largest and tallest buildings around the world. Their duties include engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services. On September 11, 2001, Protec had portable field seismic monitoring systems operating at other sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Demolition specialists were hired to clean up Ground Zero and remove the remaining damaged structures, and these experts called on Blanchard’s company to document both the deconstruction and the debris removal. Here are nine of the best arguments made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their rebuttal by Protec:

Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

Protec: No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the “where”—the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.

Claim #2: But they fell right down into their own footprint.

Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.

Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.

Protec: No, air and debris can be seen being violently ejected from the building—a natural and predictable effect of rapid structure collapse.

Claim #4: Witnesses heard explosions.

Protec: All Seismic evidence from many independent sources on 9/11 showed none of the sudden vibration spikes that result from explosive detonations.

Claim #5: A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.

Protec: To a man, demolition workers do not report encountering molten steel, cut beams or any evidence of explosions. Claims of detected traces of thermite are at this time inconclusive.

Claim #6: Ground Zero debris—particularly the large steel columns from towers 1 and 2—were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny.

Protec: Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.

Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.

Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

Claim #9: Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.

Protec: Most of our comments apply to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they should have seen had explosives been present. The hundreds of men and women who worked to remove debris from ground zero were some of the countries most experienced and respected demolition veterans. They of all people processed the experience and expertise to recognize evidence of controlled demolition if it existed. None of these people has come forward with suspicions that explosives were used.

Having seen the steel and debris myself at Fresh Kills on numerous occasions, and the interior and debris at the Pentagon, and recognizing the thousands it would have taken to pull of this conspiracy, it is time for these people to let it go, give it up, shut up.

Dr. Hasan has now been charged with 13 counts of murder which I am certain will be the basis for this White House and its personnel at the Pentagon to deny Purple Hearts to those who were killed in the terrorist attack at Fort Hood.  But, awarding Purple Hearts to these men and women will be a tacit admission by this Administration that Hasan's murderous rampage was a terrorist attack by a radical Muslim.  So, I doubt any Purple Hearts will be awarded.

The President's disdain for these soldiers, while appearing to care by walking through Arlington National Cemetery and appearing at Dover Air Force Base (where only one - 1 - family out of eighteen gave him permission) being photographed during a dignified transfer of a killed soldier, is astonishing.  Coupled with the decision to try some of the 9/11 conspirators in a New York federal district court just adds insult to injury.

Even with his decision to play the word game with his decision to move the trials to criminal court in New York ("This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision" he said in announcing the decision to move the trials out of Guantanamo) he is failing to act Presidential.  This decision was either made with the full knowledge of the White House or the President is completely out of the loop with major decisions being made by his Cabinet and appointees.

Having been one of those appointees, I hardly doubt he is out of the loop. 

So where do we stand on the Purple Heart issue?

Remember, those killed and wounded at the Pentagon were awarded Purple Hearts.  Let's see what happens at Fort Hood.

Mr. President, award the hearts, don't play politics with this one.

Learn more about the Purple Heart Award at the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Today The New York Daily News and The Smoking Gun ran stories about a coloring book written and published by the Freeborn (gotta' love that name) County, Minnesota Crisis Response Team following tornadoes in that county.  The coloring book, designed for very young children, is entitled "A Scary Thing Happened:  A Children's Coloring Book to Help Cope with Disasters."

Sounds innocent enough, right?

Apparently not. 

But before I get to the so-called controversial aspect of this coloring book, I want you to consider some of the slanted reporting I've read about the coloring book.  Consider the following:

1.  The New York Daily News erroneously refers to FEMA as the Federal Emergency Management Association (emphasis added) instead of Agency, as though FEMA were a nonprofit, charitable organization.  Come on, Daily News, get the name of the federal agency correct.  After all, it spent upwards of $20 billion in New York following 9/11.

2.  The New York Daily News reports that Freeborn County officials have a letter from FEMA in 2003 applauding their efforts.  That paragraph is immediately followed with a paragraph reminding readers that I headed FEMA in 2003 in an apparent attempt to somehow discredit this coloring book because county officials published it when I was FEMA Director.  I wonder if I signed the letter, or was it auto-penned by my office, or actually written and signed by someone under me?  Frankly, who cares?  I just may write the County and tell them that having looked at the coloring book today, I think it's non-controversial.

3.  In a great example of skewering poll results, the New York Daily News is running a poll asking two questions:  (a)  "It's [the coloring book] a good way of teaching kids about real-life issues"; and, (b) "It's in terrible taste to show kids the horrific events of September 11."

The poll is running approximately 60-40% against the coloring book as of this writing.  Well, of course.  Just based on those two questions I'd choose the second answer.  You would assume that the coloring book shows horrific events.  In my mind I instantly think of victims jumping to their deaths, or the destruction and sorting at the Fresh Kills landfill, or the bodies of victims in the rubble.  If that's what they were showing, you bet I'd choose answer "B."

Now FEMA has pulled the coloring book from their website. 

If I were still in charge, I would not have pulled the coloring book. 

Here are links to the New York Daily News story and The Smoking Gun website where the coloring book is the "featured document" today.  Take a look at these links, look at the coloring book, and in the words of a certain cable network, you decide.

FEMA Pulls "A Scary Thing Happened" in the New York Daily News.

The Smoking Gun's "FEMA's Scary Thing."

We need to admit, scary things do happen.  If we can have sex education, driver education, drug awareness, why not disaster awareness?

For those of you outside Colorado or otherwise trying to ignore Boulder's most famous person (other than Jon Benet Ramsey) I wanted to give you a taste of what the University of Colorado's students were hearing by a 61-year old professor accused of plagiarism.

Ward Churchill has the same Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech under the First Amendment as the rest of us. But, I don't have to agree with his speech. During the course of the trial today these two points stand out and I simply can't let them pass without comment.

You may recall he wrote on 9/11 or shortly thereafter that those who perished during the terrorist attacks of that day were "little Eichmanns." Today during the trial he elaborated according to the Boulder Daily Camera:

He said if you make it a "practice of killing other peoples' babies for your own personal gain, that eventually, they are going to give you a taste of the same thing."

He said the use of the term "Little Eichmanns" -- a reference to Nazi technocrat Adolf Eichmann -- in his essay was his way of trying to make it clear that even those whose roles in society are seemingly innocent are still participating in helping push along the greater system in which they live.

Without Eichmann, he said, the Nazis' efforts to wipe out millions of Jews would not have been nearly as efficient and quick.

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann," Churchill told the jury.

I assume this poor soul, fleeing what must have been unbearable heat, flame and toxic smoke inside the tower, and taking control of the way he would die by jumping out of the 110 story World Trade Center, is one of the "Little Eichmann's" Ward Churchill refers to in his essay and testimony.

I suppose Ward Churchill thinks that Cesar Borja, Sr., a New York City police officer and one of the first responders to the World Trade Centers, died in vain because he was one of those whose "roles in society are seemingly innocent are still participating in helping push along the greater system in which they live" and is just another "Little Eichmann" trying to save his fellow citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the Jews Eichmann sent to the death camps.

Students of this University of Colorado professor were being taught to equate the evil and criminal acts of Eichmann to those who worked in the World Trade Center or who responded to the attacks that day. Ward Churchill goes even further and accuses all of us who work in the United States as being Little Eichmann's, too. "When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann," Churchill told the jury.

Since Churchill, as a university professor, doesn't bring "profit" to the university he must exempt himself from being a "Little Eichmann."  How convenient.  All the rest of you hard working, profit-seeking individuals working for private business, are just evil Little Eichmann's. 

Be thankful he's no longer teaching young, inquisitive minds. 

At least for now.