text:
The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi -- Part II
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
This is Part II of the "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" Read Part I here.
[The following is Matt Taibbi's five follow-up questions to Griffin's responses, which follow in order of the questions). ]
August 7, 2008 -- Professor:
As you've noticed, I struggled for quite some time with the question of how to answer your responses. Mainly this was because I was unsure of whether to treat this exercise like a comedy (because it's certainly hard to take seriously any "debate" with a person who believes that Rudy Giuliani would conspire to blow up the densest slice of taxpaying real estate in the world, the New York City financial district, in order to save his city the cost of an asbestos cleanup) or whether to aim higher and treat it like a serious political argument. I tried it both ways and neither way seemed to fit. Treating this like an absurdist comedy, I realized, I'm making it hard for readers to see how monstrous and offensive your arguments are -- but then again, when I take you seriously, spending paragraph after crazed paragraph grandstanding against you and your book, suddenly I'm the one who looks ridiculous.
Then it hit me, and probably far too late: the correct play here is to ignore you and your arguments entirely. There are many things about your work that are outrageous and offensive, but the very worst thing about you and other 9/11 conspiracists -- and, I guess, lately anyway, me -- is that you're/we're a distraction from the real problem.
After all, the thing that was always the most unrealistic aspect of 9/11 Truther theory was this notion that anyone in power in this country would need to pull off a stunt like this in order to further its nebulous imperialist agenda. For the only conceivable motive for planning and executing a caper on this level would be to try to sway public opinion -- but public opinion has, for decades, already been more or less whatever the powers that be have wanted it to be.
Most often, in fact, public opinion was simply not wanted at all: what was most desirable was that public attention be elsewhere when industries were deregulated, bailouts distributed, OPIC loans handed out, contracts funneled to insiders. In March, for instance, the federal government quietly agreed to subsidize JP Morgan's acquisition of troubled Bear Stearns, shelling out $29 billion in taxpayer money to prop up a hornet's nest of bad mortgage-backed securities and other investments. Forget about a public outcry over this move to bail out the irresponsible wealthy using yours and my tax money -- the public didn't even know about this deal. And even if it had known about it, it wouldn't have understood it. And even if it had understood it -- extremely unlikely -- it wouldn't have been organized enough to do anything about it. And even if it had been organized enough to do anything about it, and this is really once chance in a million, our government could have just ignored them anyway, the same way it did when it pressed ahead with its insane invasion of Iraq even as 400,000 people marched on Washington. But there weren't four people marching against the Bear Stearns deal.
This same public -- the same public that stood meekly by when its manufacturing economy was exported overseas, that cheered when our government pledged to "get tough" with China by demanding that it allow us to weaken our currency vis a vis the Yuan, that twiddled its thumbs when Wall Street played Keno with the nation's homeowner savings, that has consistently voted overwhelmingly to deprive itself of its right to litigate against powerful companies -- this is the public you think George Bush and Dick Cheney needed to blow up downtown Manhattan for, in order to get them on board with a war against Iraq, the Patriot Act, and whatever else.
The recent financial crisis shows most graphically that the financial powers that run this country have had a completely free hand to do as they pleased for decades, and certainly long before 9/11. These same people are about to bend the public over again, as whoever wins the next election will be called upon to fork over a series of gigantic bailouts to rescue the speculators who ran amok for the last dozen years or so. It's business as usual. And yet, you actually think that the same public that didn't even notice when so much of its money was pissed into the wind by Wall Street -- you think they scared the Department of Defense so much with their jealous stewarding of public treasure that the DOD actually blew up the records office of its own building to hide "evidence" of embezzlement and fraud. Like the public had EVER given a shit (at least, given a shit enough to do something about it!) about defense department waste before! Like there was anyone to hide that evidence from!
All of this 9/11 Truther stuff, it's a silly distraction. A country whose economy is about to go down the shitter, to the brink of depression, thanks to three-plus decades of routinely-ignored Wall Street deregulation just can't afford to be wasting its time arguing about thermite reactions and "morphing technology." Captivated by the comic possibilities of Truther literature, I realized this too late. As you'll see below, I even spent a lot of time pulling what's left of my hair out over your answers to questions that even I admit now go beyond inane. I admit in advance to looking silly for doing so, and hereby make a promise to God that I won't do it again, at least not as long as we have other things to worry about. All the same, some of the stuff you came up with, Professor sheesh! And I thought I was loony! To wit:
1. Your response to the general criticism that 9/11 Truther rhetoric never attempts to make a case for what, specifically, it thinks actually took place on 9/11 is to reduce the argument to a parable -- you compare the issue to a court case. And in order to make your argument that what I was asking is illogical, you essentially cast yourself and the Truth movement in the role of a beleaguered defense attorney. And what a case you have!
In the hilarious story you invent, my best friend (seemingly) cheats at a contest to beat me for a large prize, and is brutally killed by an arrow the next day. Cue dramatic music: Dunh dunh dunh! The cops have a recording of me threatening my friend, a video of me entering a building carrying a case large enough to hold a crossbow, and a water bottle found on the roof (whence the crossbow bolt was fired!) with my fingerprints on it.
But alas, I'm not guilty! The bottle was planted, and the video and audio evidence was faked using "morphing" technology! Morphing technology ? Absurd, an ordinary person would say. But fortunately for me, my attorney -- a sharp fellow whose instincts are remarkably like those of a California professor named David Ray Griffin -- is able to introduce as evidence the internet link to an authoritative article on the efficacy of said morphing technology, published in no less prestigious a publication than The Washington Post .
As for motive, it appears the government has cleverly waited for the opportune circumstance of my friend cheating to beat me out of a large cash contest to frame me, a dangerous dissident with a history of writing critically about the White House, for his murder.
Humorous aside: Even in this fictional example, the logic is hilarious: the government is willing to wantonly murder my innocent friend, but not me, the actual "threat" to the state; their method of dealing with me is instead to cook up an elaborate scheme to frame me, a scheme that would depend upon them knowing in advance that my best friend would cheat to win a contest, and would rely upon the use of dozens of confederates to plant phony evidence crafted by super-advanced technology. When, of course, they could have just skipped all that complex stuff, and hit me in the head with a brick in an alley. Strongly reminiscent of Dr. Evil of Austin Powers fame waving off of his son Seth Green's suggestion that he just shoot Austin Powers in the head ("I'll get my gun right now!"), opting instead for the "sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads" method of pointlessly-elaborate execution.
Anyway, despite all this evidence of innocence, the judge -- a grumpy sort tending toward the unfair who seems to resemble me in this story -- insists that the defendant can only be cleared if the attorney offers a clear and plausible alternative theory of the crime.
Which sucks, because the attorney has another bombshell: a lab has found that the arrow that killed the friend could not possibly have originated from the purported scene of the murder.
(Again, why would the bolt -- that's what you call the thing fired from a crossbow, by the way -- not match the location? If this is a frame-up from the beginning, why wouldn't the framers make sure to make the purported kill-spot and the bolt matched? I realize this is a fictional story, but even these inconsistencies are hilarious).
But the judge, a real jerk, refuses to dismiss the charges still, again grumpily insisting on proof of the alternative theory of the crime. In a wonderfully witty twist, he even quotes me, Matt Taibbi, in justifying his decision! The irony is overwhelming! It hits you like a dozen freight trains! Game over -- jeu, Griffin!
Two things about this example of yours:
Firstly: the reason it's so funny that you chose this particular example -- the handcuffing of a fictional defense attorney -- is because what defense attorneys do, and what you're doing, is exactly the opposite of investigation, the opposite of a sincere quest for truth. I'm not knocking the profession at all; I believe in the system and greatly esteem defense lawyers who do their jobs well.
But defense attorneys have absolutely no responsibility to get at the truth of any court case. That's not what they do. Their job is to annihilate the prosecutor's arguments piece by piece. It doesn't matter -- never matters -- if the sum of their arguments adds up to a coherent narrative. If the prosecutor's case is based upon a witness, a confession, a hair, and a deposit slip, the defender attacks each piece using whatever weapon applies: the witness is a drunk, the confession was coerced, the hair is inconclusive, the deposit slip explained by a win at Vegas blackjack tables. He crushes those four items, he wins his case.
He doesn't have to know what happened in reality. His client may even be guilty, in fact often is. In your circles, you call this "raising questions." It's a great characteristic for a defense attorney. For an investigator, someone interested in learning the truth, it sucks ass. Even many defense attorneys (and I know this because I know a few) feel shitty about using this bomb-tossing intellectual technique to make a living. But at least they're doing it within the framework of a system designed for that activity. You're doing it as a substitute for actual inquiry, which is pretty sad.
Secondly: what the fuck? What kind of lunatic comes up with this as his "illustrative example"? Your simplifying parable is more fantastic and complicated than the actual story! At first I thought you were kidding, then I had to go back and read it to believe it -- astounding! It should tell the readers of this debate quite a bit that this is your idea of a good way to start an argument: "Say for example that your best friend is killed in broad daylight with a crossbow, and the government frames you for the crime using advanced morphing technology"
Uh, okay. I can say it, sure. It's stupid, but I can say it. Does the story end with my wife in bed with a cow in a spacesuit? I mean really. I don't mean to take a gratuitous swipe here, but your fictional example says a lot about how your mind works.
Lastly, with regard to the actual question -- why would Bush sit there like a dunce if he knew the attacks were coming -- your answer is another doozy. Apparently, George Bush is incompetent! Oh, he's competent enough, one guesses, to pull off the greatest and vastest criminal conspiracy in the history of the human race not only without getting caught, but without any of his presumably countless accomplices faltering or leaking the truth -- but his competence level apparently doesn't extend to not looking like a paralyzed dipshit for nine whole minutes at the actual moment of crisis. I'm shocked that even you can take an answer like this seriously.
Incidentally, "The people who support the official story are conspiracy theorists too!" has got to be the most tired and boring movement truism since "It's a child, not a choice." Always amazed to see Truthers still cheering its cleverness after hearing it for the 500th or 600th time. But feel free to keep using it, I guess.
Griffin responds August 24, 2008 : I was surprised by the length and nature of your response. When the interview was being set up, I was told by AlterNet editor Jan Frel that, after I gave my answers to the questions, "Taibbi has indicated he might ask you a few followup questions." That did not lead me to expect, some months later, an almost 6,000-word essay. I have, in any case, replied to your new comments as briefly as possible. But because it takes longer to answer charges than to make them, my reply, unfortunately, is even longer. In your introductory comments, after calling my arguments "monstrous and offensive," you say: "the correct play here is to ignore you and your arguments entirely." But you do not ignore all of them, only some of them. How do you expect readers to avoid the suspicion that you simply ignored the ones that you knew you could not answer? In any case, the main reason you give for saying you should ignore my arguments is that my position, according to which 9/11 was an inside job, is "a distraction from the real problem."
Because you are here simply repeating a charge made by Alexander Cockburn, I will refer you to my response to him, in which I pointed out that "The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" is the government's account of 9/11, which has been used to justify the so-called war on terror, because it has distracted us from the overarching problem of our time: the threat that global climate change may bring civilization to an end. (Hopefully you do not, like Cockburn, accept the oil companies' claim that fossil fuels are causing any such threat.) Another problem with your claim that my position is a distraction is that, in making it, you seem to be presupposing, circularly, that the inside-job position is false. I say this because I suspect that if you believed this position to be true, you would consider it anything but a distraction from our real problems.
The official account of 9/11 has been used to justify a new doctrine of preemption, according to which we can attack a country without any evidence that it is ready to attack us; to launch pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq that have killed millions of people and cost hundreds of billions of dollars; to ram the (already-written) PATRIOT Act through Congress; and to justify torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, spying on US citizens, an imperial presidency, and other practices that violate our Constitution. If the official account of 9/11 is false, the effort to expose this fact, in order to put an end to the policies that have been justified by this account, cannot reasonably be called a distraction from real problems. It is instead an attempt to strike at the root of most of our new problems. Your characterization of the 9/11 truth movement as a distraction, based on your assumption that the official account is not false, simply begs the question.
Insofar as you do argue against the inside-job view, you rest your case primarily on a priori arguments. The main one in your new essay is that "[no one] in power in this country would need to pull off a stunt like this in order to further its . . . imperialist agenda." No one would need to "to sway public opinion," you say, because "public opinion has, for decades, already been more or less whatever the powers that be have wanted it to be." Indeed it has been, but this is precisely because the powers that be have used various methods, including propaganda, lies, and false-flag operations, to sway public opinion. Given your view, according to which "the powers that be" have for many decades been doing what they want without worrying about public opinion, I wonder about your explanation for the fact that in 1962 the joint chiefs of staff came up with Operation Northwoods, which consisted of various "pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba," some of which would have involved killing Americans and then blaming Cubans. One of these was a "Remember the Maine" incident: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."
Likewise, how do you explain the fact that when the powers that be wanted to attack North Vietnam, they engineered the Tonkin Gulf hoax? Why didn't they just tell the American people, "Look, we want to control Vietnam, so we are going to attack North Vietnam, even though this will likely cost over 50,000 American lives"? And if the Bush-Cheney administration in particular just does what it wants without bothering to marshal public opinion, why did it, before it attacked Iraq, fabricate lies about weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And why did it work to convince the public that Iraq was behind the anthrax scare when it knew otherwise? Given the fact that your a priori argument for why the government would not have orchestrated 9/11 has no historical support, your excuse for ignoring the empirical evidence for the inside-job view collapses. Having shown this, I turn now to your retorts to my responses.
Answer to follow-up question 1. I was surprised that you spent so much time arguing that my made-up story is "fantastic." Is it not obvious that it was intended to be? It's sole purpose was to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim that, to disprove a criminal charge, it would insufficient to prove that one could not have committed the crime; one would also have to provide a "concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why." And, given your characterization of the judge as a "real jerk" -- because, after being given scientific proof that you could not have committed the crime, he "refuses to dismiss the charges still, again grumpily insisting on proof of the alternative theory of the crime" -- I take it that you have conceded the point. However, rather than simply conceding, you use the story's reference to attorneys to go on the attack. Pointing out that defense attorneys are typically less concerned to discover the truth than simply "to annihilate the prosecutor's arguments piece by piece," you accuse me of taking the same approach -- of engaging in "the opposite of investigation, the opposite of a sincere quest for truth."
But you provide no evidence to support this charge, even though I had published six books about 9/11 from which you surely, if your charge were true, could have found many illustrations. You ignore, moreover, the fact that this is precisely the charge that I have leveled, at great length and with multiple examples, against the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), which put out the official report on the destruction of the Twin Towers. I believe that most people who read Chapters 2 and 3 of my Debunking 9/11 Debunking , in which I make and document this charge, will agree that the charge you have made applies to these bodies, not to me. Another problem with your charge -- that I am engaged in "the opposite of a sincere quest for truth" -- is that it implies that you are engaged in such a quest, rather than simply trying to annihilate the claims of the 9/11 truth community.
I find it difficult, however, to reconcile this self-evaluation with your practice. You evidently accept the government's account as stating, at least roughly, what really happened on 9/11. And you presumably agree that a theory is unacceptable if it is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. And yet you seem untroubled by all the facts I have pointed out that do contradict the government's account of 9/11. Indeed, you seem to take pride in ignoring such facts. As I pointed out in my answer to the first of your original questions, you have cheerfully agreed that you are "ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence proving that the Towers could not have collapsed as a result of the plane crashes alone," saying that even if such proffered evidence were sound, it would prove nothing.
In your new essay, you say that America "can't afford to be wasting its time arguing about thermite reactions and 'morphing technology.'" But if there is scientific evidence that "the Towers could not have collapsed as a result of the plane crashes [and ensuing fires] alone," and that they were instead brought down by explosives, then the government's story, supported by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, is false. If dust from Ground Zero shows signs of thermite reactions (which physicist Steven Jones has shown to be the case ), this provides additional physical evidence -- on top of the evidence that steel melted and all the testimonial evidence of explosions going off in the buildings -- that explosives were used. And if the reported cell phone calls were faked by means of voice morphing, this means that there is no evidence of Arab-Muslim hijackers on the planes. I am puzzled how you can reconcile your contempt for all such evidence with your claim to being engaged in a "sincere quest for truth." While you continue to complain that I am "telephone-averse" (although I explained that I correspond frequently with experts by email, which is superior to telephone conversations by virtue of providing written statements), you seem to be evidence-averse.
In any case, turning next to what you call "the actual question," you summarize it as: "why would Bush sit there like a dunce if he knew the attacks were coming?" But this was not "the actual question" you had raised. It was, instead: "[If the Secret Service] knew about this whole thing in advance, why didn't they plan to make Bush look a little less like a paralyzed yutz." This is very different from saying that Bush himself knew, which we have no basis for saying.
What we can safely infer, given the failure of the Secret Service to whisk Bush from the school, is that at least the lead Secret Service agent -- who overruled a subordinate, who had planned to whisk Bush away -- knew who was responsible for the attacks and thereby knew that hijackers were not going to crash a plane into the school. Next, having changed the question to why, if Bush himself knew about the attacks in advance, he simply sat there, you say that my answer, apparently, is that Bush is incompetent. You then seek to show my position to be self-contradictory by saying, as if my position implied this: "Oh, he's competent enough, one guesses, to pull off the greatest and vastest criminal conspiracy in the history of the human race without getting caught." But neither I nor anyone else in the 9/11 truth community, to my knowledge, has suggested that Bush planned the 9/11 attacks. Dick Cheney, who was formerly the secretary of defense, yes, but not Bush himself. Instead of changing the question so that you could attack a straw-man position, I wish you had responded to my suggestion that "you should be concerned about why, if the attacks were a surprise, the Secret Service left Bush at the school." But perhaps you are content with what seems to be your answer to all such problems: They just screwed up .
And yet, although this screw-up could have cost the president his life -- because if the planes had really been under the control of al-Qaeda pilots, one of them might have been bearing down on the school at the very moment the Secret Service should have been whisking Bush away -- no one, evidently, was fired. I would think this might give you pause. In any case, before moving on to the next question, you say, in response to my comment that people who support the official story are also conspiracy theorists, that this is a "tired and boring movement truism," which you have heard 500 times. I made the comment, however, because you were using the term as if it applied only to people who affirm the alternative conspiracy theory. You said, for example: "9/11 conspiracy is so shamefully stupid."
I would agree with that judgment, of course, if you meant the original 9/11 conspiracy theory. But you clearly meant only the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. So I could only assume that you had never heard anyone point out that the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory. The failure to acknowledge this point is virtually universal among critics of the alternative conspiracy theory. For example, New York Times journalist Jim Dwyer wrote an article entitled "2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11." Although a more accurate title would have been, "2 U.S. Reports Say Government's Conspiracy Theory Is Better than Alternative Conspiracy Theories," you would look in vain for a story in the Times, or any other mainstream publication, with such a title. Likewise, a Popular Mechanics book defending the government's conspiracy theory is subtitled: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. Why is this one-sided use of the term so prevalent? Paul Krugman recently wrote:
"[M]any of the people who throw around terms like 'loopy conspiracy theories' are lazy bullies who [as one observer put it] want to 'confer instant illegitimacy on any argument with which they disagree.' Instead of facing up to hard questions, they try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy."
We in the 9/11 truth community will cease pointing out that the official theory is a conspiracy theory when defenders of the official story begin treating this fact like what you rightly say it is, a truism, rather than continuing to use "conspiracy theory" in a one-sided way to exploit the negative connotations the term has accrued -- as you yourself continue to do.
2. Matt Taibbi I figured this would be your answer -- that the high-level people in both agencies could have been in on it, while the lower-level people were not. On the surface, I suppose that makes sense. Except that the complicity of scores of lower-level government employees from agencies throughout the federal apparatus would have been necessary to cover up the crime. Who was cleaning up the "non-plane" plane parts at the Pentagon? I'm assuming it wasn't Richard Myers. Who cleaned up the "phony" crash site in Pennsylvania, hid the bomb "evidence" in the rubble at the Trade Center? I'm assuming it wasn't Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. But whatever, I'm not going to dwell on this one. Your subsequent answers were much more interesting.
David Ray Griffin responds: Yes, many more people were certainly complicit in the cover-up than in the operation itself, as in most such operations.
3. Matt Taibbi: Again, your answer here to the question of why a plotter would go blabbing his secrets on TV is basically well, er, maybe he wasn't that smart. Which is basically no answer at all. Make no mistake about it -- if Rudy Giuliani knew ahead of time that hundreds of New York firefighters were about to be murdered via bombs planted in the World Trade Center, there is no fucking way in hell he is going to start blabbing on television about the buildings coming down.
Nobody is that stupid -- and especially not a man who, whatever you might think of him as a politician or as a person, has been one of the most accomplished criminal prosecutors of his time.
But an even larger point here isn't that you believe that Rudy Giuliani is that stupid; it's that you believe he is that evil. No one in the press, and I mean no one, has been harsher critic of Rudy Giuliani than me (well, okay, Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice has. But no one else). I believe Rudy to be almost limitlessly greedy and power-hungry, a man who will say and do almost anything to get elected. But here's the thing. Regardless of what I think of his politics, I also believe that Rudy Giuliani believes that he is a patriotic, decent, law-abiding citizen.
And he's able to believe that because he does, in fact, have a record of sorts. Rudy has put away dangerous mobsters, broken extortion rings, uncovered government corruption, and wiped out an insider-trading network, taking on the likes of the Gambinos and the Boesky-Milken axis. I don't like what he's become, sure, and he certainly hasn't been shy about grandstanding over his achievements -- but he does have real, civically-valuable achievements. Bigger achievements than you or I have on our records, by far, as embarrassing as that is to admit.
And this is what makes it so crazy that you're so willing to believe that Rudy Giuliani was complicit in the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of people, including team after team of New York city firemen. You don't have any evidence at all; you're just a telephone-averse academic in the California suburbs indicting people left and right on the basis of what? Of nothing at all. One ambiguous statement in the media. Even worse, when pressed, you come up with a real whopper -- that Rudy okayed the wanton murder of thousands of Americans in order save the money his city would have had to pay out for asbestos removal!
Are you fucking kidding me? I'd harp on the fact that this doesn't even make sense (he murders New Yorkers in order to save them money? Not his personal money, but their -- our -- public money?), except that the obscenity of this accusation so totally outweighs its lack of sense.
And also, by the way, you might have picked up the telephone here, too. It took me five minutes to blow up that particular assertion, just by calling the New York City comptroller's office and asking the very obvious question of how much the city stood to gain financially by having its entire downtown district covered in toxic dust and incurring millions of dollars in overtime for its emergency personnel for the better part of three months.
According to that office, they spent $365 million extra in overtime costs in FY 2002 alone. They estimated the total cleanup costs -- from the initial year or so of cleanup -- at about $659 million. "We lost about $2 billion in taxes in 2002 and about $928 billion in 2003 alone," a spokesman for the comptroller's office told me when I called. When I mentioned that someone had a theory that the WTC was blown up to get New York out of an asbestos cleanup, the guy laughed. "Yeah, that makes sense," he says. "This way we had to clean it up anyway. Except it was spread all the way up to Canal Street now, on mountains of rubble and dead bodies."
If Rudy Giuliani green-lighted the 9/11 attacks in order to save the city money, he sure picked a bizarre strategy -- gutting his tax base, straining his services appropriations to the breaking point, and physically destroying some of his city's most valuable infrastructure. Doing all that to avoid a mandated asbestos cleanup makes about as much sense as hijacking a plane full of passengers, secretly disposing of them somewhere, and then faking its crash into the Pentagon while actually launching a missile, all in order to avoid an audit of the Department of Defense. I mean really, where do you get these ideas? Are you completely insane?
As for the charge that Rudy maybe did this to launch a run for president again, this would be laughable if it weren't so disgusting. You don't appear cowed at all by the act of accusing another man of murder, be it Rudy Giuliani, Richard Myers, Ted Olson, or whomever. In the real world, i.e. in the world where we can't publish things unless they're true, we don't make such accusations unless we have very compelling evidence. Not only do we not want to get sued, we actually don't want to be wrong. Because, you know, it's a little bit monstrous to call someone a murderer without proof. This is an intellectual flaw on your part, a rhetorical flaw, but more than that it's a moral flaw. And it pervades a great deal of your work.
David Ray Griffin responds: With regard to Rudy Giuliani, you have evidently given up your claim that it was "absolutely impossible" that he had foreknowledge. But you again state that Giuliani "blabbed" on television, although I had explained that this term is misleading because he "merely said something that was recognized to imply foreknowledge by the few people who knew the relevant facts." You believe, however, that he would not even have done this. " Nobody is that stupid -- and especially not a man who has been one of the most accomplished criminal prosecutors of his time."
I would think that a moment's reflection on the names "Elliott Spitzer" and "John Edwards" might cause you to reconsider that claim. (Edwards was not a criminal prosecutor, but a plaintiff's attorney, but I assume your point was about accomplished trial lawyers in general, that they would all be too smart to do something really stupid.) In any case, your main claim is that Giuliani would not have been complicit in the murder of thousands of people because "he is [not] that evil." Your faith in him is touching. But it is no different from the faith of Germans that their leaders could not have possibly been running death camps, or the faith of Japanese that their soldiers could not be butchering hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Manchuria on the basis of a false-flag operation (the Mukden Incident). The question must be settled on the basis of evidence, not faith. On this issue, you say to me: "You don't have any evidence at all."
Since you have evidently made this statement without reading any of the evidence I have presented (in, say, Debunking 9/11 Debunking ), let me summarize a few points. First, the conclusion that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives is now beyond reasonable doubt. Besides the fact that total collapse has never been induced in steel-frame high-rise buildings from any cause other than pre-placed explosives in the process known as controlled demolition, there are at least a dozen features of the collapses that can be explained, and only explained, on the supposition that such explosives were used (such as the fact that the buildings came straight down and at virtually free-fall speed; that there were horizontal ejections over 500 feet of steel columns weighing thousands of tons; that steel was melted and even oxidized, processes that required temperatures far greater than the fires could have been; that hundreds of witnesses, including firefighters, police officers, reporters, and WTC employees, reported massive explosions going off in the Twin Towers long after all the jet fuel would have burned up; and that several people, including two city officials who were in the building, reported explosions in WTC 7 [as I discuss in my new book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited ]).
This conclusion is now publicly endorsed by many hundreds of professionals in the relevant disciplines, including physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, intelligence officers, and philosophers of science (see Patriots Question 9/11). The second point is that, if explosives had not been planted in the buildings, there would have been no basis for expecting them to collapse, and yet it was known in advance that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were going to come down. That is relevant to the present point because in both cases the message that the buildings were coming down can be traced back to Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management -- as I document in both of the aforementioned books. Next, in seeking a reductio ad absurdum , you characterize me as holding that "Rudy okayed the wanton murder of thousands of Americans in order save the money his city would have had to pay out for asbestos removal!"
But this is like McCain's claim that Obama's energy program consisted of recommending that Americans inflate their tires. Obama made this recommendation when, after he had laid out what an Obama administration would do, a member of the audience asked what ordinary citizens could do. Likewise, I made the point about asbestos after you said that any reason Giuliani might have had for participating in the conspiracy would have been "some completely insane reason." I see now that, in order to avoid being McCained, I should have made a more complete statement of his possible motives. First, as I already mentioned, he could have expected that, by being ready to appear to act heroically that day, he could exploit this image to become president -- a strategy that almost worked, as he was leading in the polls when the contest for the Republican nomination began. Second, he as a Republican and a patriot likely supported the Bush-Cheney drive to use 9/11 as a pretext to gain control of the lion's share of the world's oil reserves in Central Asia and the Middle East.
Like you, I believe Giuliani sees himself as a patriot and, given our competitive world order, patriots often regard it as their duty to work for the good of their own countries, even when this means sacrificing thousands of their own citizens and also devastating other countries. The Italian statesman Camillo Cavour once said: "If we did for ourselves what we do for our country, what scoundrels we would be." Third, the dramatic footage of the Twin Towers being hit by "hijacked airliners," then exploding at the top, with dust clouds that reminded people of a nuclear explosion, then suffering total collapse, killing thousands of people, was an essential part of the psy-war directed at the American people that day, getting them ready to give carte blanche to a war on Islamic nations packaged as a "war on terror." You claim that the first of these possible motives -- that Giuliani's perceived heroism on 9/11 might help him become president -- is "laughable."
What is really laughable, however, is your statement, "In the real world, we can't publish things unless they're true." That is so obviously false that I will not bother to elaborate. I do agree, however, with your statement that "we don't [i.e., we shouldn't] make such accusations unless we have very compelling evidence." But I do believe that the 9/11 truth community has compiled and published compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and that Giuliani was one of the insiders. You have certainly done nothing to undermine this belief. I would challenge you, in fact, to provide anything close to comparable evidence for the government's conspiracy theory. Popular Mechanics tried this and, as I showed in Chapter 4 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking , failed miserably. It would be interesting to see if you could do better. But thus far you have acted like the defense attorneys you describe, simply trying to annihilate the 9/11 truth community's arguments while ignoring all the problems in the government's theory.
4. Matt Taibbi: Okay, again, this is defense-lawyer thinking at its best. In a murder case usually two eyewitnesses make for a slam-dunk, but you're dismissive of 152 witnesses for a variety of hilarious reasons. A side note: the supposition that an eyewitness is not to be trusted because he works for the mainstream media I find especially funny -- as if a TV reporter, or for instance someone like me, who saw a missile hitting the Pentagon would keep such a sensational fact secret to protect the conspiracy! This from a person ready to toss out every single account of a cell phone call from a hijacked plane on the basis of a Washington Post story about "morphing technology." In fact, exactly how much of your theories would even be left, if you took out the information you got from "mainstream news reports"? And yet mainstream news reporters can't be counted on to tell the truth about seeing an airplane fly into the Pentagon. Hilarious!
Moreover, your only counter-supposition to the hijacked-airplane story is that, well, who knows, maybe it was a remote-controlled plane that hit the Pentagon. But of course! Again the same pattern: extraordinary diligence in attacking links in the "official story" chain, similarly extraordinary indifference to the issue of what actually happened, what actually happened being irrelevant to your enterprise.
I specifically asked you to tell me what your theory was, if it wasn't Hani Hanjour piloting a plane into the Pentagon, and you specifically avoided answering the question, instead retreating once again to the same old long-winded conspiratorial oatmeal about how bad a pilot he was, how he couldn't have pulled it off, yada yada yada.
But here's the thing: if it was not Hani Hanjour flying that plane, it follows that something truly fantastic happened, a confluence of several absurdly unlikely sets of circumstances.
Now, maybe this is just me, but there is nothing at all unbelievable about a radical Sunni terrorist committing an act of suicidal terrorism with American citizens as the target.
But I need to see some actual evidence before I'll buy the U.S. Air Force a) shooting a missile or a remote-controlled drone into the Pentagon, intentionally refusing to warn other military personnel, while also b) somehow effecting the magical disappearance/execution of a whole planeload of genuinely missing civilian jet passengers and c) coaxing all the on-the-ground personnel in the Pentagon, who've just suffered a deadly attack at the conspirators' hands, to go along with the cover-up of the missile/drone wreckage, and d) cleverly arranging false witness testimony from (at minimum) 152 willing confederates, or however many non "mainstream media members" you're willing to admit. Among other silly things.
You're talking about an unbelievably complicated narrative laced up and down with spy-novel sensationalisms that would have made Ian Fleming blush: secret kidnappings of jet passengers, super-advanced remote-controlled aircraft, branches of the military attacking each other in secret, a media deception of unprecedented scope, "morphing technology" effecting astonishingly effective fake phone calls and for what, exactly? This part makes the least sense of all.
We know why al-Qaeda would want to attack the Pentagon. But why your conspirators would want to fake a plane hijacking/crash and then shoot a missile or a drone into the Pentagon -- unless they're just murderous lunatics acting in unprecedentedly harmonious psychotic concert, not folie a deux even but folie a deux cent -- this is beyond the ability of even a person such as yourself to come up with even a distantly plausible explanation.
The best thing you can come up with is this idiotic remote-controlled jet theory, and the most generous thing one can say about that is that it takes perhaps five or ten seconds longer than some of your other ideas to inspire uncontrollable laughter -- specifically, until one gets to the part where one imagines a planeload of passengers, copies of The Wall Street Journal in hand, cheerfully stepping aboard a plane with no flight personnel and smiling all the way through the vessel's eerie Dracula-ship takeoff to oblivion.
I don't know, it's just me -- but if I had doubts about it having been a plane that hit the Pentagon, I'd be re-interviewing those witnesses that said they saw one. That you haven't done this tells me an awful lot about your motives. Do you just not want to hear it, or are you more comfortable with internet links, who don't talk back?
David Ray Griffin responds: With regard to the number of witnesses who reported seeing an airliner strike the Pentagon, I am glad you reduced your claim down from "thousands" to merely 152. But that is still much too high. The list to which I referred, which was compiled by Eric Bart, contains 152 people who were regarded as "witnesses" in some sense or another to what happened at the Pentagon. But in a statement that you simply ignored, I pointed out that "only some of them claim to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon." Some of the other people gave quite different reports, with six of them speaking of a small or mid-sized aircraft, perhaps a commuter jet or even a missile.
Still others believed that the damage had been caused by one or more bombs. Only 66 of the 152 claimed to have seen an airliner headed toward the Pentagon, and only 31 of those claimed to have observed this airliner actually strike the Pentagon. An examination of those 31, moreover, raises doubts about their authenticity. In pointing to the causes for such doubts, I quoted Jerry Russell's summary statement that 24 of these "worked for either the Federal Government or the mainstream media," which led you to say that eyewitnesses should not be mistrusted simply because they work for the mainstream media. That is true, because there are other criteria that must be used when deciding whether to accept testimony of such people.
One such criterion involves a principle commonly used by historians in evaluating conflicting testimonies of people who belong to some movement or institution. Let's say that two strong supporters of John McCain's bid for the presidency give different accounts of some event in his life. One account makes him seem noble and heroic, the other account reflects poorly on him. All other things being equal, we would give more credence to the critical account, because such an account from a McCain supporter would be surprising, suggesting that party spirit has been trumped by honesty. Another commonly used criterion is that we should be suspicious of testimony of a member of some organization when that testimony supports that organization's official position but is contradicted by physical evidence.
Applying these principles to the testimony of reporters for the corporate press, which has been completely supportive of the official account of 9/11, we would be suspicious of statements that support this account whenever such statements conflict with testimony from other mainstream reporters and/or the relevant physical evidence. An example of conflict with physical evidence is provided by the testimony of Steve Anderson of USA Today , who said that he watched as a plane "banked slightly to the left, drug its wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon." Given the fact that photographs of the Pentagon lawn immediately after that attack showed so sign of the enormous scar that would have been caused by a wing dragging along the ground, Anderson's testimony must be considered untrustworthy. For conflict between various reporters within the mainstream media, we can take the seven reporters in Eric Bart's list who claimed to have seen an airliner hit the Pentagon. I should not, incidentally, have simply used Russell's summary statement, which refers to them as working for the "mainstream media."
I should have been more specific, to wit: five of these seven worked for Gannett (primarily USA Today ), and another for the Armed Forces Information Service. In any case, what these reporters said is at odds with what other reporters have said. For example, CNN's Jamie McIntyre, having inspected the area near the strike zone shortly after the attack, said that all he saw were "very small pieces of the plane , small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around." The conflict becomes even stronger when we combine McIntyre's observation, which dealt with the area outside the building, with that of ABC's John McWethy, whom I quoted before about what he observed inside the building, namely: "I got in very close, got a look early on at the bad stuff. I could not, however, see any plane wreckage."
If an airliner really hit the Pentagon, why did these reporters find no evidence of a crashed airliner either inside or outside? As you can see, it is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting testimony from the mainstream press. One has to choose which testimonies to accept. According to the criterion discussed above, testimonies that are in tension with the story endorsed by the corporate press have greater credibility (all other things being equal) than those that support this story. The same principle can be applied with regard to Pentagon personnel. They provided nine of the most graphic accounts of an airliner hitting the Pentagon. But other Pentagon personnel gave testimonies suggesting that nothing of that nature occurred. Having quoted Army officer April Gallop before, I will here quote some other witnesses. Dean Eckmann, who flew an Air Force F-16 over the Pentagon after it was damaged, said he suspected that the damage had been caused by "a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames coming up and . . . there was no airplane wreckage off to the side." Sgt. Reginald Powell said: "I was . . . impressed with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane.
It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building." Karen Kwiatkowski, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, spoke of "a dearth of visible debris on the lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact." Registered Nurse Eileen Murphy said: "I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, 'Where's the plane? How come there's not a plane? I would have thought we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn't there." Research analyst Will Jarvis, having hoped to see the plane, said: "There was just nothing left. It was incinerated. We couldn't see a tail or a wing or anything." When you add these testimonies to those of fire captains Dennis Gilroy and John Durrer, which I quoted before, you can see that the testimony that an airliner hit the building is in strong tension with testimony from many people who were at the Pentagon. And, again, the set of testimonies that goes against the Pentagon's official story must be accorded greater credibility.
In explaining grounds for doubting the testimonies that an airliner hit the Pentagon, I also quoted Russell's point that many of these testimonies contain "substantial errors or contradictions." Since that summary statement did not impress you, I will give some examples. In addition to USA Today 's Steve Anderson, quoted earlier, three other people claiming to have seen a plane hitting the Pentagon said that it hit the ground first. Mary Ann Owens, who like Anderson worked for Gannett, said "the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area." David Marra reportedly said that after the wing touched the helicopter pad, the plane "cartwheeled" into the Pentagon. Self-described pilot Tim Timmerman, who told CNN that the Pentagon was hit by an American Airlines Boeing 757, "no question," said that "it hit right in front of the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground."
All of these testimonies, besides being disproved by the available photographic evidence, are contrary to the official story. Other sets of testimonies are discredited by being mutually contradictory. For example, two people said they could see in the windows of the plane, whereas others said the plane was dark, perhaps because the blinds were pulled down. Also, Major Lincoln Leibner, saying that the plane "completely entered the building," added: "The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake." USA Today reporter Narayanan Vin, by contrast, said: "The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged."
As such problems in many of the testimonies show, the question of what damaged the Pentagon cannot be responsibly settled by cherry-picking a few testimonies. We must weigh the testimony that supports the official story against that which does not. We must also evaluate this testimony in relation to physical facts, including these: (a) photographs showing the absence of a plane and the absence of the kind of damage that would be expected from a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour; (b) the failure of the alleged crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon to create a seismic signal strong enough to register on any nearby seismograph; and (c) the failure of Pentagon officials to produce any of the physical evidence that, if Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon, would have proved this: the flight data recorder; any of the other airplane parts with unique serial numbers; and the 85 videos, admittedly possessed by the Department of Justice, from cameras trained on the Pentagon. In sum: Weighed against contrary testimony and the relevant physical evidence, the evidence provided for the airliner theory by alleged eyewitness testimonies is very weak, especially given the problems inherent in the testimonies and the affiliations of many of the witnesses.
I turn now to another of your lines of attack, in which you say that I am "ready to toss out every single account of a cell phone call from a hijacked plane on the basis of a Washington Post story about "morphing technology." However, if you would read my accounts, you would see that this is no more accurate than McCain's reduction of Obama's energy program to his recommendation to inflate our tires. Other elements in my argument are: (1) Cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners were technologically impossible in 2001, yet many people received calls that they believed to be from cell phones, either because they were told this or because they recognized their spouse's cell phone number on their Caller ID. (2) After the impossibility of such cell phones calls became widely known, the FBI simply changed the story, saying that all those reported cell phone calls -- except two that occurred when Flight 93 was down to 5,000 feet -- were really made from passenger-seat phones. (3) In some cases, the FBI's new story involved rejecting the statements made in FBI documents, such as affidavits, from 9/11 itself. (4) Some of the calls contained internal evidence of not being authentic. The possibility of voice morphing is not the reason for rejecting the calls; it is a way to explain the reported calls, given the fact that high-altitude cell phone calls could not have been made -- a fact with which the FBI evidently came to agree.
In still another line of attack, you say: "[Y]our only counter-supposition to the hijacked-airplane story is that, well, who knows, maybe it was a remote-controlled plane that hit the Pentagon." But my reference to the possibility of remote control was made after I had spent some paragraphs explaining why I did not think that the Pentagon had been hit by an airliner of any sort, whether remote-controlled or not, adding that I had laid out such evidence more fully in Debunking 9/11 Debunking . In concluding this line of thought, which was directed against your claim to know that someone had piloted a plane into the Pentagon, I added: "Even if an airliner had hit the Pentagon, moreover, it might have been controlled remotely." For you to say that this is my "only counter-supposition to the hijacked-airplane story" is no different from McCain's saying that Obama's only solution to the energy problem is to encourage people to inflate their tires. Continuing to caricature what you call my "idiotic remote-controlled jet theory," you say you were sent into uncontrollable laughter by my scenario, which involves a "planeload of passengers, copies of The Wall Street Journal in hand, cheerfully stepping aboard a plane with no flight personnel and smiling all the way through the vessel's eerie Dracula-ship takeoff to oblivion."
That would indeed be a hilarious suggestion if anyone had made it. Those who believe that the planes were remotely controlled, however, have suggested either a switch, as proposed in Operation Northwoods, in which the plane containing crew and passengers was to be replaced with a remotely controlled drone, or else a technological override, in which the power to steer the airliner was taken out of the pilot's hands. With regard to Hani Hanjour, you continue to insist that, if I think he didn't pilot Flight 77 into the Pentagon, I must tell you what really happened. But you had seemingly accepted my point that, to disprove the government's theory, I need not provide a full-fledged alternative theory: It's sufficient to show that the government's theory cannot be true, and clearly Hani Hanjour could not have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon. You say that "there is nothing at all unbelievable about a radical Sunni terrorist committing an act of suicidal terrorism with American citizens as the target." But that is to divert attention from the issue at hand, which is that there is something very unbelievable about a man who could not safely fly a tiny single-engine plane piloting a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon, especially given the trajectory it reportedly took in order to strike Wedge 1 at ground level.
You complain that I retreat into "long-winded conspiratorial oatmeal about how bad a pilot he was, how he couldn't have pulled it off, yada yada yada." Why call this "conspiratorial oatmeal," as if it were something the 9/11 truth community made up? It was your trusted mainstream press that pointed out Hanjour's incompetence, with the New York Times , in an article called "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence," quoting one of his instructors as saying that Hanjour "could not fly at all." And the report that shortly before 9/11, a flight instructor "declined a second request [from Hanjour for a lesson] because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills," was made by the 9/11 Commission. Why don't you, instead of continuing to use the term "conspiracy" in a one-sided way, complain about the government's "conspiratorial oatmeal" about Hanjour's flying a giant airliner like an ace? I am truly puzzled about your attitude towards impossibilities. Just as you dismiss scientific evidence that the official story of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings is physically impossible, you dismiss evidence that the official story about Flight 77 being flown into the Pentagon by Hani Hanjour was impossible. You seem to be an extreme fideist when it comes to official story about the 9/11, saying, in effect: "So what if it's impossible? I believe it anyway."
5. Matt Taibbi: I was greatly saddened when I read this answer, because it forced me to rewrite the entire first chapter of my next book, The 10 Most Retarded Things I Have Read This Year . The notion that Pentagon officials blew up a section of their building, and then crashed something (a missile, a drone, whatever) into that same section of the Pentagon in order to hide evidence of financial malfeasance, and kill the relevant auditors, is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it almost belies comment.
In exactly what form do you think this "evidence" was kept? Do you think it was hammered into granite slabs and mounted, hieroglyph-style, on the building's walls? Why else would it be necessary to blow the area up? It should be noted that even U.S. Senators have for decades failed in their attempts to extract meaningful financial data from the Department of Defense, which has failed to comply with the Chief Financial Officer's Act since at least 1990 and is, in the words of former Senate aide and defense budget analyst Winslow Wheeler, "unauditable."
Despite its appalling accounting practices the DOD has never come close to changing its ways, mainly because there is absolutely nothing like political momentum in congress for starting an investigation into its spending habits. In fact, in the years after Rumsfeld's "shocking" announcement, a succession of both Republican and Democratic congresses were so horrified by the bad accounting that they increased defense spending every year by an average of $50 billion dollars a year!
The closest thing to a "threat" to the DOD's spending habits that it has experienced in recent years was a call by Dennis Kucinich for an investigation into the unaccounted-for defense funds. A call that was, like almost everything else Dennis Kucinich has asked for, completely ignored. You really think John Murtha's Democrats are going to start demanding an investigation into Pentagon spending? Or Ted Stevens's Republicans? There will never, ever be a serious movement to pry those books open -- and there certainly wasn't even a hint of one on the horizon back in 2001. You might have noticed that Democrats have since taken over both houses of congress, and there hasn't been so much as a whiff of interest in investigating defense spending. So exactly whom were they hiding the evidence from? Exactly whose easy access to Pentagon records did they fear? Yours? Or did your thinking not even go that far?
So the notion that Don Rumsfeld would a) announce a major accounting problem and then b) blow up a section of his own building the next day, murdering over a hundred people, in order to save the bureaucratically impregnable Department of Defense from the investigative ravages of Dennis Kucinich, or someone like him -- that is high, high comedy. I defy you to call any budget analyst in Washington, lay that theory on him, and not have your ears laughed off on the telephone. Oh, I forgot, you don't make phone calls.
Beyond that, even I mean, come on! Even if you wanted to kill someone possessing dangerous information, even if you wanted to hide evidence, do you honestly think the best way to accomplish this would be to fake an elaborate terrorist attack that would focus the eyes of the entire world on the "attack site," aiming a missile or a drone or, let's say, a passenger jet liner, at the office in question? Subtle! Now there's a plan with a very high probability of success! "I know -- we'll herd a bunch of innocent civilian passengers onto a remote-controlled plane, a flight which we've cleverly appropriated from American airlines, and crash it into the very spot in the Pentagon where we'll be exploding bombs at the moment of impact! And everyone will buy it because, as it happens, we'll also be conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center and blame it on Saudi religious radicals in order to advance an imperialist agenda that involves invading the secular dictatorship of Iraq in response!"
It's all so simple! Why didn't I think of that?
Don't you ever wonder about the curious coincidence of criminal interests extant in your muddled thinking? Department of Defense embezzlers just happening to develop a sudden need to commit mass murder to cover up financial malfeasance at the very moment when Rudy Giuliani decides he's on board with leveling the World Trade Center, in order to save New York from having to pay for an expensive asbestos cleanup -- right at the time Dick Cheney and George Bush happened to be plotting to seize Iraq's oil reserves using a violent "false flag" attack involving the murder to untold thousands of Americans? How fortunate that these criminally needy bodies found each other at just the same moment. And I thought Strangers on a Train was unrealistic.
Come on, you can't possibly believe this bullshit! Even the phrasing of your answer -- "that does not mean that a plausible theory cannot be provided" -- betrays the near-total absence of interest on your part in getting your theories to make any kind of sense. The "theory" you provide isn't even your own, just something you scared up while digging through the steadily-expanding mega-landfill of Truther lore -- and recently, it seems to me, perhaps even in response to my questions. This is the very definition of half-assed thinking, half-assed research. Part III continues here. [Ed. AlterNet's CMS has a maximum number of characters allowed per article -- this is why the piece has been divided in three parts.]
Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone . He is the author of The Great Derangement (Spiegel and Grau, 2008).
David Ray Griffin is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University (California). His 34 books include seven about 9/11, the most recent of which is The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Expos " (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email


text:
|Money Talk
|Return to Board Menu Bottom
|Page 1
| Bond Mutual Funds - for sale
Posted by matthew25 on 6/8 at 10:43 pmThe bond funds are getting beat up quite badly. Worst in a decade.
I'm selling Vanguard Inflation Protected (4.62% loss), Vanguard Long Term (4.83% loss last month) and Vanguard Intermediate Munis (1.43% loss in last month).
At least my losses haven't been as bad as those mentioned in NY Times article yesterday about a major bond fund being down 13.4% (Pimco Corp Oppty), iShares mortgage ETF lost 10.4%, a REIT that invests in mortgages lost 8.7%. and long-term treasury bonds lost an average 6.8% in May, according to Morningstar; and Vanguard's Extended Duration down more than 6% in May.
If these were stocks, it would be lead story on nightly newscasts.
Reply Back to Top
Posted by Coeur du Tigre on 6/9 at 2:47 am to matthew25Yeah Matthew, I feel your pain. These are the times when I wonder about the truism that the market has already priced in all future events. I suspect leverage has more to do with the strength of these drops than fundamentals.
Reply Back to Top
Posted by fishfighter on 6/9 at 6:38 am to Coeur du TigreI dumped all my bonds about a month ago. When gold started falling, it was time.
Reply Back to Top
Posted by Fat Bastard on 6/9 at 10:02 am to matthew25got out of my domestic munibond fund and corporate bond fund quite some time back. looks like perfect timing. I still do have a global bond fund in my 401k that is doing well though but nothing domestic and I do not like treasury bonds.
Reply Back to Top
Posted by Fat Bastard on 6/9 at 10:03 am to fishfighter
Been coming for awhile. Myself and other investors had talked about this over a year ago. You could see it coming.
This post was edited on 6/9 at 10:04 am
Reply Back to Top
Posted by matthew25 on 6/9 at 4:43 pm to Fat BastardI knew it was coming, but I thought bonds wouldn't drop until Ben's Golden Money Faucet was turned off. Are we headed to repeat of 1994 when bonds dropped 25%?
Reply Back to Top
Reply Back to Top
Posted by Coeur du Tigre on 6/10 at 3:52 am to GenesChin
quote:Good question. We need to start with a look-see at 1994.
"Between January and September 1994, the U.S. 30-year long bond's yield jumped more than 150 basis points to 7.75%. The proximate trigger was a Federal Reserve rate hike as it started to tighten policy following recovery from the 1991 recession. But while changes in inflation and official interest rate expectations might have had a little to do with the U.S. bond market's performance, they weren't really behind the generalized bond market selloff, according to a Bank for International Settlements post mortem the following year.
Instead, it seemed that the bond market's own internal dynamics had more to do with the widespread selling than any macroeconomic factors — volatilities across major markets jumped between 10 and 20 percentage points, whatever the local factors." (Mash here.)
Table of Intermediate returns:
'...jumped between 10 and 20 percentage points'? A bond market? That only says one thing to me: leverage. So what we're asking is, "Is the current bond market volatility due to anticipated interest rate hikes from the Fed or too many players with too many option calls?" Yeah.
With no current sign of inflation increasing or even yawning and stretching, would the Fed increase anyway in order to re-inflate rates? Without the underlying increase in real inflation? That would mean the Fed would pay higher interest with un-inflated dollars. Uh, no.
So should we look at 1994 for insight to today's bond market? Yes, we can. But it may be better to look at 1995.
This post was edited on 6/10 at 3:55 am
Reply Back to Top
Looks like only the short-term bond funds will eke out a small gain this year.
Reply Back to Top
Holding a lot a cash now. What to do?
Reply Back to Top
OTOH, it might be a better buying opp than a year ago, but it still is a matter of when, not if, rates move against you. I'm not going to get into the "reinvest dividends back into a fund, you eventually will earn out" as a capital decline is a capital decline on money investors would view as relatively safe, especially if one is not making large periodic future investments. Thank Ben, his policies don't work so well for savers or risk averse investors.
Reply Back to Top
Reply Back to Top Refresh
|Return to Board
Page 1 of 1

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We are living in a land of Galaxies
No doubt, Samsung wants to be your go-to electronics maker with something for everyone for every occasion. There is no sign of any slow down as we begin to see a familiar design language wash across several form factors of devices this summer.
The Galaxy Tab 3 7-inch is arguably the largest phablet yet
The preceding alone is enough to make a competent manufacturer with good marketing a player in just about any market. However, Samsung does not (and likely will not) stop there. Maybe you need or want something bigger, well the Galaxy Mega 5.8 will work and if not, the Galaxy Mega 6.3 just might.
Those of you that wish you could make and receive regular calls on your tablet are in luck, the Galaxy Tab 3 7-inch will fit that bill. However, you might want to consider wearing a headset since holding a dinner-tray sized slab to your head might not be so appealing, but if that is your thing, the Tab 3 7-inch will accommodate you.
There are five versions of the Galaxy S4 alone
The point being, Samsung has turned the Galaxy line-up into something more than just a batch of cell phones, it is also something more than just a brand unto itself as well, yet it is not quite ubiquitous either. Still, Samsung's line-up dwarfs every other manufacturer out there.
Which Galaxy do you want to live in?
Share:Facebook Twitter Google plus
28 Comments
1. abcdefgh (banned) (Posts: 471; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)
other than s4 and s4 active all other are dumb as rocks
10. Tele7 (Posts: 47; Member since: 12 Dec 2012)
Woho, what about the Nexus experience S4?
25. rawbow (Posts: 428; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
Note 2 buddy
2. PapaSmurf (Posts: 8922; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Samsung is taking over the world, one phone at a time.
3. ncarlosmiguel (Posts: 206; Member since: 14 May 2013)
Galaxy Ace 3 Duos. Thats the perfect size for me. Though I'm not happy with its less than 2Gb storage, but I can live with it.
4. roldefol (Posts: 3182; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
Diluting the Galaxy S brand, one device at a time.
5. dynamo.one (Posts: 63; Member since: 14 Feb 2013)
samsung will rule the earth!
6. Sprissy (Posts: 96; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
I like Samsung but they really need to stop with many variants of the S4...
7. coinmanmat (Posts: 12; Member since: 28 Nov 2012)
Lol so true, Samsung rules the world and it wants to make sure of that by offering a Galaxy S4 for everyone's needs
8. SonyFindOneDroidple (Posts: 502; Member since: 11 May 2013)
I actually dont have any problem with this domination..
The problem is the use of design language. My propositions:
Each galaxy line must have their own design language. Design 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 etc
For the Galaxy S
NOte, Mini, Ace, Grand, Mega, Zoom, Active
I dont want my flagship phone to look like some mid or lowend galaxies
And dont use s4 in Zoom and Active lines
9. bugsbunny00 (Posts: 1256; Member since: 07 Jun 2013)
year of the G- plastics!.
20. PunyPoop (Posts: 741; Member since: 18 Jan 2013)
that's what I'm talking about!
11. Yankchef (Posts: 76; Member since: 03 Feb 2012)
The one not populated by Samsung. This many devices that all look the same, it's just obnoxious. My HTC one is excellent and none of these devices compels me. Id rather they just focused on one flagship which is what made the s3 the success it was
12. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)
Godzilla phone with Lizard brain ( 4, 8, 16 gig). Waiting for sgs5 DSLR phone.
13. gigaraga (Posts: 1381; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)
Samsung Galaxy line of devices rock every other phone series!!
14. Lyngdoh (Posts: 225; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
Sooner Samsung will have more galaxy than the universe.
15. Alex123 (Posts: 227; Member since: 17 Oct 2012)
I hate the design of S4 Zoom so much. looks bulky
16. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3024; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
Soon, people will start calling phones- 'galaxy'.
Hey dude, can i use your galaxy? My galaxy has run out of stars!
21. shreehari (Posts: 45; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)
in india its total opposite with indegionious companies like micromax karbonn , and celkon all r good
22. shreehari (Posts: 45; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)
with respect to money is said
26. rawbow (Posts: 428; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
lol, speak for yourself and your friend circle! that does not comprise India...when it comes to "smartphones" ..Galaxy and iPhones are ruling just like any other country
23. sergiobr (Posts: 435; Member since: 25 Feb 2013)
S4 , Galaxy Tab 3 7-inch, Active and Zoom ;-)
24. roldefol (Posts: 3182; Member since: 28 Jan 2011)
My Series 7 laptop is the only Samsung for me.
27. SamreenM (Posts: 1; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Yes, after reading this, it really seems that we are living in a land of Galaxies. The various versions of S4 have made the users excited but confused at the same time because of too many choices. Wouldn't it be better if one S4 has all the features?
Samreen M
28. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 2866; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Yeah, you are correct. +1 to you.


text:
Search for your vendor and printer model.
Search for your vendor and printer product.
Search for your printer model or product by keyword.
Canon C5800 toner cartridges and supplies. Guaranteed quality, discount-pricing, and same-day shipping!
Creating up to 230,000 impressions a month, the Canon imageRUNNER C5800's multifunction features and color laser printing technology can work well for users with large volume printing needs. It comes with a standard memory of 768 MB and a 40 GB hard drive. Using black Canon C5800 toner, users can create up to 58 pages per minute while documents print at a rate of approximately 16 pages per minute using color imageRUNNER C5800 toner. The first-page-out using color and black printer toner print in approximately 11 seconds and 5 seconds, respectively.
The machine operates with 4 individual Canon C5800 toner cartridges holding black, cyan, yellow and magenta toner. Its black imageRUNNER C5800 toner cartridge has a maximum capacity of 40,000 sheets and the color toners have yields of 9,500 sheets. The unit comes with a variety of different paper handling options including two 1,500-sheet front loading trays, two 550-sheet front loading cassette trays and a 100-sheet manual bypass. Users can expand the standard paper capacity to a maximum of 7,700 sheets. The device comes with a 100-sheet duplex printing automatic document feeder that allows it to handle multiple pages at once and easily print double sided.
Copies and prints turn out with a crisp text and flawless graphic resolutions of 2400x600 dpi using black and color Canon C5800 toner. Its scanning feature produces scans with a resolution of 600x600 dpi. Provided scan software includes Canon's Color Universal Send technology that allows users to send scans and distribute them to numerous destinations.
The C5800 comes with a built-in color control panel that allows users to monitor and follow the progress of every print job. It is compatible with Mac and Windows operating systems. The Canon imageRUNNER C5800 is the perfect business class laser printer that offers flexible features and multifunction capabilities.
Based on our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee, Ink Technologies will accept returns of compatible or remanufactured ink and toner cartridges for full credit if the returned product has a valid return authorization number and is received in our warehouse within 6 months of the original shipping date. If there is a confirmed print quality issue, only 1 set of opened products will be accepted for credit returns, and only if less than 30% of the ink or toner has been used.
Ink Technologies will replace defective compatible or remanufactured products free of charge if the products are returned within 1 year of the original ship date, and provide a return shipping tag for return of the product.
Receive a coupon for 10% off + Free Shipping*, sent instantly to your email - just sign up for our monthly newsletter!
* offer applies minimum purchase $60; OEM products excluded
No thanks


text:
- Critic & User
- Videos &
- Codes
& FAQs
- Gameplay
- Similar
Game Details
- Number of Players 6
- Online Enabled Yes
Game Description
Splinter Cell Agent Sam Fisher faces his most challenging mission yet - the first that requires him to be a double agent. Working for the U.S. government, Fisher's up against a terrorist group that's gained a foothold on American soil. Go deep undercover to infiltrate the ring and bring it down from inside. Earn the terrorists' trust to reach objectives using tactics of real-life double agents. Balance the patience needed to stay undercover and the urgency to act before innocent people die. At every turn in the branching storyline, you'll face high-stakes decisions about whose orders to follow - your government or those of the group you're trying to infiltrate.
User Reviews
Average Member Rating: 8.2 out of 10
Poor poor Sam.... (8 out of 10)
posted by morgan72 (STRATFORD, CT) on Nov 5, 2006
Member since Oct 2006
8 out of 13 gamers (62%) found this review helpful
Member since Oct 2006
8 out of 13 gamers (62%) found this review helpful
This is the one title I anxiously awaited more than any other, unfortunately it didn't live up to what I built it up to be in my head. Don't get me wrong, if it was a stand alone title, it would have been great, but as a 'Splinter Cell' sequel I think it fell short. The Splinter Cells have been my f...more
Specs & Requirements
Xbox 360 Compatible Yes
Online Features Online Multiplayer, Voice, Friends, Scoreboards, Quick Match, OptiMatch, Teams
Modes MultiPlayer Co-Op, Story, Deathmatch, Team Battle, Full Mission Single-Player, Full Mission Co-Op, Campaign, Online Co-op
Controllers Communicator Headset
Audio/Video In-Game Dolby Digital
Console Link System Link 2-6
Similar Games
- Grand Theft Auto IVRelease 4/28/2008
- Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell ConvictionRelease 4/12/2010
- Mercenaries: Playground of DestructionRelease 1/10/2005


text:
Shock Horror - Oleaginous Hain nearly tells the truth
Telegraph | News | Hain: Labour must not be Big Brother
Labour is in danger of getting a reputation as a "big brother" Government with a tendency to ban everything and curb individual freedom, Peter Hain says today.
The Pope is also in danger of getting a reputation of being a Catholic and if Bears aren't careful they might be known to shit in the woods.
It is nice that the orange one has noticed he problem but would I trust the oily old criminal to do anything about it? Would I coco!


text:
Greg Redfern, wtop.com
This month the Moon will be your guide to finding planets, star clusters and only the brightest Perseid Meteors. With August being the last full month of summer many people get outside and go on vacation. Take some time to look up at the sky and enjoy the view as provided by your guide - the ever changing Moon.
Skywatching Highlights
One of the best meteor showers of the year, the Perseids, occurs on the night of the 12th and 13th. Unfortunately, the bright light of the Full Moon will hide all but the very brightest "falling stars." Just watch the sky for bright meteors during the evening.
Mercury will be in the eastern sky about 45 minutes before dawn at the end of the month. If you have a clear and unobstructed horizon you should be able to see golden-yellow Mercury. On the 27th Mercury will be below and to the left of the thin crescent Moon. Binoculars will help you find the elusive planet. Also get the latest on the MESSENGER mission to Mercury here.
Venus is not visible this month.
Mars is well up in the eastern sky before the light of dawn begins. The Red Planet is to the immediate left of the crescent Moon on the 25th. Just to the the left of Mars lies two bright stars, Castor and Pollux -- Castor is the higher of the two. The next NASA mission to Mars, Mars Science Laboratory, named Curiosity, is at Cape Kennedy undergoing final checkout for a launch later in the year.
NASA's DAWN mission arrived at Vesta on the 16th. The spacecraft is in orbit and studying the second largest asteroid in the main belt up close and personal for the next year. Then DAWN will set sail for the largest asteroid, Ceres. Vesta is directly opposite the Sun on the 5th and is visible all night but is relatively dim. I will post a finder chart on my blog for those of you interested in trying to spot Vesta.
Jupiter dominates the eastern sky rising around midnight as August begins and around 10 p.m. as the month ends. The gibbous Moon will be just above Jupiter on the 19th. Juno, NASA's next mission to Jupiter is scheduled for launch on August 5th.
Saturn is in the West-Southwestern sky at sunset. The ringed planet is to the left a famous double star, Porrima (Gamma Virginis) all month long. The crescent Moon glides below this duo on the 3rd. NASA's Cassini mission is till going strong.
First Quarter Moon is on the 6th and this month's Full Moon occurs on the 13th. This month's Full Moon is called the "Full Sturgeon Moon" in recognition of the peak of Sturgeon fish in the Great Lakes and other bodies of water. Late evening the Last Quarter Moon is below the Pleiades star cluster on the 21st. New Moon is on the 28th. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter remains in orbit around the Moon.
Here are our down to Earth events for this month:
- Open House at the Department of Astronomy at the University of Maryland, College Park Campus Observatory, will be at 9 p.m. on the 5th and the 20th. There will be a "Vesta Fiesta" celebrating the Dawn mission to the asteroid Vesta on the 5th so be sure to attend. For information on other "Vesta Fiesta" events including NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, click here
- The National Capital Astronomers (NCA) have a star party at Rock Creek Park on the 27th at 8:30 p.m.
- The Northern Virginia Astronomy Club (NOVAC) will meet at 7 p.m. at George Mason University (GMU) on the 14th. The speaker is Bryan Wilburn and his topic is "Beginning in Astrophotography."
- NOVAC will hold a public star party at Great Meadow on the 19th from 8 to 11:00 p.m.
- The United States Naval Observatory (USNO) has Monday night tours but space is limited.
- The National Air and Space Museum (NASM) has several space related activities this month.
- The National Air and Space Museum astronomer Sean O'Brien hosts a public star party on the 20th at Sky Meadows State Park from 7:30 to 11 p.m.
- The TriState Astronomers (TSA) General Meeting will not meet this month as the Brish Planetarium is closed for the summer.
- The Astronomical Society of Greenbelt (formerly the Greenbelt Astronomy Club) (ASG) will hold a star party on the 6th and 20th starting at 9 p.m. at the Northway Field and Observatory. On Aug. 7 ASG will host "Sidewalk Astronomy" at Roosevelt Square, across from the movie theater (129 Centerway, Greenbelt, MD), at 8 p.m. ASG will meet on the 25th at 7:30 p.m. at the Greenbelt Community Center and the speaker will be Craig Levin on "Astronomy vs. Astrology, What's the Difference?"


text:
Utica Weather
Current Temp 29.0 °F
Wind : East at 5.8 MPH (5 KT)
Humidity : 78 %
Pressure : 1027.6 mb
Boys Basketball: Black Knights take care of Oneida
ROME, N.Y. (WKTV) - The RFA boys basketball team won another Tri-Valley League game Friday, beating Oneida 74-46 at Strough Middle School. Jon Griggs led the Black Knights with 18 points, while Lloyd Parkmond added 14.
RFA took a 16-12 lead at the end of the first quarter and slowly extended that lead throughout the rest of the game. The Black Knights led the Indians 32-21 at halftime and 51-35 after three quarters, then used a 23-11 fourth quarter to put the game away.
Chris Morehouse led Oneida (1-3, 0-3 TVL) with 17 points.
RFA (4-1, 3-0 TVL) will next travel to Whitesboro on Monday.
Most Popular
More On Demand mini
Most Popular
What's On


text:
|MT Carmel
|Breeding policy for Mt Carmel:
Our breedings will be to enhance our current lines and to keep one or two puppy (s) as our pick of the litter. Since most
litters are of 6 to 8 puppies there will be a need to place the remaining puppies in good homes which includes a spay and
neuter contract. Mt Carmel is not breeding to supply a pet market, so we don't plan breedings around the demands of a
pet market. We will try to provided as much notification as possible of a breeding. If you are still interested and willing
to wait please Contact us for more information.
Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA)
Bitches out of Mt Carmel will be bred no more than two times and only between the ages of 2 & 6 years and will also
have OFA certifications.
|Whelped 06/10/2004
Sire: Ch Stoneybrook Kodiak
Dam: Ch Mt Carmel's Jasmine
4 Dogs & 2 Bitches
Mt Carmel's Blue Butler
Call name: Butler
Owners: Eg and Wade
Mt Carmel's Mystic Warrior
Call name: Paladin
Owners: Sarah and Bill
Mt Carmel's All My Patience JC
Call name: Patience
Owners: Jesse and Amber
Ch. Mt Carmel's Shay O'Brien
Call name: Shay
Owners: Breeder
Mt Carmel's Miracle
Call name: Boo
Owners: Faith and David
Mt Carmel's Caesar O'Niell's SG1
Call name: Caesar
Owners: Toni and Cliff
Next litter is tentatively scheduled for Spring of 2015
We ask those that would like to be considered for our waiting list to please fill-out and submit our
Questionnaire and Reference Form No Deposit required.


text:
this is my new journal. not bad, eh?
my old blurty got boring. so i made a new one :)so yesterday morning i had to get up super early to go register for summer school :-/ then i came home and jackie came over. no one was home so we had some vodka then went for a walk to the deli and got slushies :) yummy. then we came home & watched Mad Tv. she left at about 6:30 and i layed down & fell asleep. and woke up this morning at 11. i was asleep for a loooong time and im probably going to be up all night tonight. today i layed around the house and did absolutely nothing. but i went to the movies tonight with jess. we saw spiderman 2 and it was fantastic :) I adopted a cute lil' fairy fetusfrom Fetusmart! Hooray fetus! my little pet fetus awww <3i have to clean my room or im not allowed out tomorrow. so im going to g do that now. i'll update my journal tomorrow.
Post a comment in response:


text:
Added Feb 14, 2011
Tokyo, Japan
i love this dress! This dress is my new design for 2011 Spring collection.
i used this adorable flower shaped button that I bought from etsy seller for the front closure.
pattern was drafted by me, based on Danielle pattern from BurdaStyle.
For more spring collection photos, check out my blog
Photo: Jason Weddington
Model: Sarah Feinerman
Make up & hair: K-two make up school
vintage button, seer sucker, thread, invisible zipper
Apr 7, 2011, 06.56 AMby Jennifer Utz
Love this!
Feb 23, 2011, 09.46 AMby sansancouture
Big fan of your dresses !! This one is amazing !! You have a great style !
Feb 18, 2011, 03.42 AMby Vivat Veritas
thanks everyone! im glad you like the dress:)
Feb 15, 2011, 08.06 AMby embaby
Wow this is amazing and so sweet!
Feb 15, 2011, 06.38 AMby pixelink
oooooooo…. perfect design feature at the front, this dress should be a big seller for you… BRILLIANT!!!!
Feb 15, 2011, 03.41 AMby phaerie
Very cute!
Feb 15, 2011, 12.33 AMby Vivat Veritas
thank you everyone! :)
Feb 14, 2011, 09.17 PMby HipDroppedStitches
Such a sweet dress! Beautiful!
Feb 14, 2011, 08.25 PMby pampula
such a pretty dress, love the pictures too!
Feb 14, 2011, 08.16 PMby amaydak
I love this, very nice!
Feb 14, 2011, 07.07 PMby Helena Holmgren
I just love the front! Amazing!
Feb 14, 2011, 06.50 PMby madewithlove-online
Feb 14, 2011, 06.22 PMby dilshadburman
Feb 14, 2011, 06.17 PMby friedi
these pics are quite good!
Feb 14, 2011, 05.50 PMby Ivana Krejci
very cute!
Feb 14, 2011, 05.19 PMby juebejue
i love it! so sweeeet!
Feb 14, 2011, 02.51 PMby Xeveria
It looks fantastic… love it ♥
Feb 14, 2011, 02.13 PMby salvia
Very pretty. I love everything.
Feb 14, 2011, 02.07 PMby sarahnix
lovely, absolutely lovely
Feb 14, 2011, 01.15 PMby shibbybean
This is pretty much the prettiest dress ever. Beautiful work!
Add to Favorites 125 people added it
Online Course
Join Meg Healy in this 6 Week Course
Web Seminar
Register today and get 20% off with a coupon code
Watch the promo video, and get the coupon code...
Check out the top four finalists, and vote on your favorite dress
Editors' Picks
Check out these new 2015 patterns and cozy up to these wintery designs
Pattern of the Week
Get warm in a hurry in this easy to sew shrug jacket
You must allow our "request for permission" request to login to Burdastyle with Facebook.


text:
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread
|Display Modes
Leg ulcer - need help
I am a beginner homeopath and i really need some help with a case. I (and my patient) would appreciate it a lot!
A woman 70 years of age has a leg ulcer that won't heal. It started with a scrach 3 years ago, and in the last year it has spread all around the leg, 12 cm wide! It is on the right lower leg. The way it spreads is that multiple blisters form, around the edge of the initial ulcer, filled with clear fluid, and when they break, raw skin is left. The ulcer is quite superficial, except on the starting place where it is a little bit deeped. Colour of the raw skin in the ulcer is red mixed with yellowish -white (i suppose that is what they called lardaceous base, but i'm not sure). In couple of places there is some growing flesh - proud flesh of red colour. She is in a lot of pain, she cries with the pain, and it is burning and sometimes pricking or pulsating. Tha pain is worse in the evening and when she goes to bed, till midnight. She is compelled to get up then and walk around or sit. She says neither hot nor cold feels good on it but if had to choose would prefer cold applications. There is a clear fluid oozing from the ulcer. There is not much of a smell. The edges are not swollen, the skin on the edge is hard and bluish-purple one cm in width, all around the ulcer.
Her both legs are swollen with edema. She has problems with the circulation in her legs and her knees are cold. She doesnt have any other health problems, she is obese, hot person but not sweaty and good natured.
Please let me know if you have any tips. I don't have much experience in treating leg ulcers. The books are not very detailed about them either (anybody knows any good books on them?). I also can't decide if I should treat it therapeutically or constitutionally? She is not the best patient to talk about her personality as she is an old, countryside woman that worked a lot all of her life and didn't have much time to think about it or just doesn't know how to explain things.
Thanks a million
Probably a venous ulcer,as from the location and fast spreading.
This may of deep venous insufficiency or superficial as in varicose ulcers, where you can observe varicosity. Also see whether the patient is diabetic.
This is a chronic condition and needs prolonged treatment as they tend to reappear. So after the healing of ulcer you have to study case in whole extend and prescribe for the patient.
Please study for Lachesis,Ars,Phos,Anthr,Syph,Sysig etc to cure the present condition.We can cure the acute state by correct prescription.
What about the state of Homoeopathy in Croatia? about Homoeopathic education?
www.pannakkal.com
Thank you.
I couldn't open this website for a few days for some reason.
How do you know that it is varicose ulcer? How would i know it? Nobody ever tought me that. She doesn't have enlarged veins, or pain in legs because of veins, she doesn't have hemorrhoids and she is not diabetic. These are the first things i asked her.
I talked to her daughter on the phone for a few minutes and asked her some questions, and it all confirmed my thinking - that she is a Calc type of person. I was thinking of giving her Sulph as it covers more the ulcer picture then Calc, and they are complementary.
Also, Merc and Lach seem close.
Anthr, Ars are better by warmth, she is worse.
Maybe I sound a bit confused, but i don't have much experience with leg ulcers. I know they can be dangerous. I already gave some Echinacea to the lady while i am thinking about the case, to prevent sepsis, and help with bacteria. She has three bacteria, Staphyloccocus and two others.
In Croatia there are not too many homeopaths, especially not in my town. There is a school that has english teachers, and it is a two year school.
I graduated in an irish school, which lasted 4 years, and we didn't do much therapeutics, and hands on work with deep pathology cases. I eould like to come to India some day and learn a bit more about that. It seems that it is the best place to go to.
Thanks a million
I only wrote the probability. The ulcers are of many types and many tend to chronic and recurrent nature. By mere observation itself we can understand many things about ulcers. Look for the edge, base, type of granulations and colour of base,discharge,surroundings for pigmentations,any varicosities and age of the patient etc
In case of leg ulcers there are many types. Venous ulcers, Arterial ulcer, Erythrocynoid ulcers,Gummatous ulcers, Martorell's ulcers, infective ulcers, Meleney's ulcers, Ulcers complicating various diseases,Tropical ulcers and yaws etc.
Venous ulcers usually at the lower third of leg and medial side and shallow.Usually painless later, but at the begining there will be pain. Surrouding reddish discoloration, pigmentation are diagnostic. The varicosities may or may not be seen. In case of deep vein complaints there will be no varicosities.
Arterail ulcer-due to poor circulation and seen in old people.It is deep ulcer and there may be discoloration of one or more toes.
Martorell's ulcer or hypertensive ulcers- Old age group, severe pain, the region usually calf or back, deep and extending, severe pain is characteristic. Some times seen in both sides. Atherosclerosis is the reason. It will takes month to heel.
Erythrocynoid ulcer-exclusively of young women.
By diagnosis of case may not help in selection of our remedy but we can know the prognosis and the nature of diseaes.So disease knowledge is always helpful.
No doubt for complete cure constituitional internal medication is a must.
www.pannakkal.com
Leg ulcer
This is a suggestion as One of my patient cured with Silicea and Tarentula.
As per your posting
She is in a lot of pain, she cries with the pain, and it is burning and sometimes pricking or pulsating. Tha pain is worse in the evening and when she goes to bed, till midnight.
........the skin on the edge is hard and bluish-purple
which indicates Tarentula Cubensis.
Clinical Case cured:
A lady 5'1" height with obesity having ulceration in her thigh since last 4 years tried several medicines in Allopathy and was using external application of Neurobin powder with out any permanent improvement.When she approched me I found- clear fluid oozing from the ulcer,colour=pink + yellow,suppuration was there,no smell. I gave her one dose Silicea-200 followed with Sac.lac for a week.oozing of fluid reduced and the lady got relief of some pain.The colour of the edge changed to purple.I gave her one dose Tarentula Cubensis 12x followed with SL for one week.She reported that now she can sleep in the night without any trouble.SL continued for next three days when she complained about burning and stinging pain next dose of Tarentual Cubensis 12 x given followed with SL for one week.The wound healed magically turning the skin normal.
So plz go through the case again and note down the peculiarity of symptoms to find out the remedy that will help you to cure the case.
Hope to hear progress from you.
Chairman,Indian Council for Holistic Health Care
Thank you both,
Actually on her diagnosis sheet from her doctor it says Ulcer cruris. Cruris is leg, right? So it doesn't say much, but i am thinking if it was varicose it would probably say so, but i am not sure? What do you think? I think it is important to know if it is varicose or not as the remedy should have the affinity to it.
Of course constitutional treatment is necessary. I know.
Some people have suggested Arnica for circulatory problem ulcers like this one. What is your thought on that?
I will also have a look at Tarentula, thank you. That case does sound a lot like mine. Was the ulcer deep or shallow, and was it spreading by itchy blisters?
Dear Zina
Yes const. presc. is best then follow up with a nosode then back to const. to finish it off.......................(you did mention staph infection)
THis is only my suggestion
Gina Tyler
The ulcer may be of infective type.
Usually the ulcer may be in three stages.
1.Spreading 2.Healing 3.Callous
Here the ulcer has thick edge with bluish surrouding. It means it is in Callous stage and no tendancy to heal. For correct prognosis and to know whether the ulcer is towards healing or worse, you have to observe the base,edge,surroudings,granulations etc.
After relief of present crisis you have to go for anti miasmatic treatment.
Night<,rest<,watery discharge etc clearly shows miasmatic tendancy.
www.pannakkal.com
< what do you mean by "the edge is thick"? Do you mean elevated? >
Why do you ask that question, Zina ? Or rather,what was in your mind when you asked the second question ? This trend of thoughts is relevant in view of the chronicity of the ulcer.
With regards
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread
|Display Modes
Linear Mode
|Similar Threads
|Thread Starter
|Last Post
|kitten with sudden leg stiffness
|Pets and Animals
|4th August 2005 08:31 AM
|corneal ulcer on tom cat
|Pets and Animals
|11th January 2005 01:06 PM
|sudden leg weakness -- treatment
|Homeopathy List Discussion
|29th November 2004 04:45 PM
|Leg Ulcers
|Skin Diseases
|10th January 2004 08:47 AM
|Tongue Ulcer
|Oliver Scott
|Homeopathy Discussion
|16th December 1999 10:12 PM