Showing posts with label Roberts M. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roberts M. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: WHEN AND WHERE?

“FLYOVER WITNESS” ROBERTS: WHEN AND WHERE?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 28 2008 4pm
updates/edits: 5/29 1am


Reversals and Revisions Regarding Roberts
It’s really quite ironic how all of this is shaping up. Just two weeks ago CIT announced they finally have a flyover witness in the form of DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts (with more to be announced). In an interview with the Team (Marquis and Ranke), he described “another plane” after the explosive impact/flyover of the ‘first.’ This is taken by CIT as fitting their second-plane flyover cover story meme very well, but it was readily evident that his account requires an extremely impossible hairpin turn over the Pentagon to get to the south parking lot as he literally describes. Oh, and he describes the plane as silver, not white as CIT have decided the flyover plane was. A lot of others did too, perhaps due to ‘reflective paint.’ But anyway, Roberts saw a plane flying somewhere after the explosion.

Then another Roberts, debunker Mark (aka Gravy) quickly reached a very different conclusion, that CIT were “utterly misusing the testimony of an eyewitness in uniform in order to claim the opposite of what that man told him.” In reality, Roberts told Clout host Richard Greene, the still-unnamed officer was an ‘official path’ observer:

“The witness had a clear view of flight 77's flight path towards the building, which he describes perfectly: a silver, commercial plane, about 50 feet high, by the light poles (which are at the cloverleaf).
It would have been impossible for him to have seen a "flyover," since the wall of the Pentagon towered more than 70 feet over him and the plane would have been on the opposite side of the building.”


This indeed fits his description of the plane and its location best and would make him a south path witness; there are many others like this who are not clear enough for CIT, but hey, what is? Where it got really ironic is when a week and a day after their first airing, ‘CIT detractor’ John Farmer released his long-awaited clarification that there was a north-path flyover (?) as well as south path impact. He had been working on it for a while and called on Officer Roberts, as CIT did, as a post-explosion/impact plane witness, but in this case supporting an actual second plane:

“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another
plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”


Farmer had been aware of this account for a while and thought of it as an account of a plane after the impact explosion. After listening to CIT’s unexpected second interview, however, he issues this update: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27. His account needs further research and clarification.”

It’s an odd reversal, and perhaps more strategic than natural, but Farmer was thinking of Roberts as basically a flyover witness until CIT brandished him as a flyover witness based on new evidence that convinced Farmer to de-list him as one. How about that… Gravy, BCR, and Caustic Logic all on the same page and CIT on the other. How can one and the same set of clues be so differently read? It’s all in the where and the when, and this where CIT can help.

Where?
Roberts’ accounts (2001 and 2008) have him working security at the south parking lot loading dock. This seems to most likely indicate the large cargo facility attached to the south end of the Pentagon, just north of the main parking area south of the building. Gravy, Farmer, and I seem to be going off this same presumed location. The Citizen Researchers are less sure, of course, and seem to like the vagueness. Even after verification Marquis was left wondering if perhaps the witness “is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side,” and ‘the lane one area’ for all he knows means “the east end of south parking,” whatever ‘south parking’ means. If CIT has any contrary evidence they can present it, but after looking around I’m fairly sure the lane one area means the west edge of the south end lot. Look at this graphic [r-click, new window for larger readable view]: Do these numbers correspond to lanes? Indeed. Note the lane numbers on north parking – 41-63, with a large and labeled “lane 64”oriented differently and running along the others. By this, lane one is furthest southwest, numbered counter-clockwise from there. Note the location of lane 10; Roberts said later in his 2001 interview (5:20) “The Defense protective services regrouped at the 395 uh, at lane 10,” which makes sense since this is near an underpass, like this other just east of there (at lane 19), where Pentagon personnel can be seen gathered just south of I-395.
When?
But this is not the main point - whatever his location, or the plane’s location or direction, the problem with this account as presented that conflicts with the “official story” is the timeline. Ranke prefaced the account’s first airing “I’ll set it up – he was in the Pentagon, and after the moment of the explosion, he was on the loading dock on the south parking lot. He’s a Pentagon police officer. He ran out to the loading dock and saw the plane continue on over the building. So this is his account just after he heard the explosion.” Marquis later clarified in response to Gravy that this witness “was inside the Pentagon and on the phone, hung up then he heard the explosion of what he thought was the "impact" of the "first plane". He then runs 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock (he was on the east end) where he see's a silver commercial aircraft […]”
Ranke added that “the pure beauty of this flyover witness account is that everything he says about the plane happened AFTER the explosion!”

Okay, so CIT is quite clear on when (even as they’re unsure on where), but what does Roberts himself say? The record is not entirely clear. We have his partial interview by CIT in 2008 [excerpt], which says nothing about time, except implied when he says "upon impact" he stepped outside and saw “another plane.” That is, it makes some sense to presume he meant in addition to the one that just impacted. But this is not conclusively proven. We also have his 2001 LOC interview which CIT feels corroborates their take and which Farmer felt sufficient to make him a post-impact witness. However, in that record there are conflictimg timeline clues and an audio gap just in the middle of the pivotal words “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building.” Interestingly, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I have reason to believe (which I’ll present soon) that “the plane” was NOT what he thought was Flight 77, and the building it hit was NOT the one he was at, and the “other plane” he saw was in fact Flight 77 on its way in before impact.

So, CIT: Does this sound crazy? You can feel free to share any where and when clues that shut me right down if you are able to do so. What else did he say to you to clarify that his sighting was after the ‘plane’ crash at the Pentagon?
---
Transcripts for reference:

2001 LoC interview, partial:
“I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”

2008 CIT interview excerpt, complete:
Roberts: “["upon impact"?] I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.”
Marquis: “What color was it? Do you remember?”
Roberts: “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
Marquis: “Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot?”
Roberts: “Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Marquis: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
Roberts: “Commercial aircraft.”
Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

Monday, February 25, 2008

"PENTACAR" UPDATE

"PENTACAR" UPDATE
The Frustrating Fraud
February 25 2008 2am
update 2/29 12am


Previously I had decided, based on a lead first offered by a fellow LCF member, that the mysterious “Pentacar” photo was probably taken just a ways north of the Pentagon. I became curious after seeingthis damaged car supposedly near the Pentagon on 9/11, as presented by Mark Roberts (aka Gravy), whom I asked about source and info to no immediate avail. About a week ago I received an e-mail from fellow JREFfer “Mangoose” alerting me:

“I know the source of the "Pentacar" photo. Gravy must have found it at the Here is New York site (http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp), just type "8029" in the search box. My copy of the photo was downloaded in 2002, so it has been at the site for at least that long.”

I immediately checked and there it is. No recent hoax it would seem, but a legit and long-available piece of evidence I’d just never seen before. There are no credits or info attached, just a tag number - 8029. But at least now I know who I can ask for more info, though it seems they’re understaffed, so I’ll just look at what’s there for any corroboration. There are precious few clues to help us confirm the suspected location of the damaged car. Mangoose suggested:

“Also, check out #8026-8028. The HINY site often lumps together photos from the same photographer, and these three photos are clearly from the same person, and they immediately precede the photo in question. They are also from the area on Rt. 27 north of the Pentagon, as suspected in the blog, but #8028 appears to have been further away from the building than #8029 (if the identification of the location in the blog is correct). If it was taken by the same photographer on the same walk down Rt. 27, it also would have been taken within the first hour after the attack -- as the other photos were taken then as well.”

I’m done for now with analyzing this stash for clues to the Pentacar’s location, and it seems more complex than that. There is some kind of pattern at work but I can’t discern it. Several pictures from the 7000s also seem to fit the general area of north of the Pentagon, including the two closest to the location I've tagged. Some in the 8000s seem out-of-order and some others seem to be missing from the sequence. Among the photos of interest, which can be found also by entering their numbers:

7717 – Nearest view – south end of the bridge the car may be just south of, looking south. Unfortunately it’s panned off to the left and the area in question is just off-frame.
7774 –Near view – north end of the same bridge in 7717. Not entirely clear at this resolution but promising - see below.
8026 - entrance to north parking lot – no clues.
8027 – entrance to north parking lot – no clues.
8028 – near an underpass/bridge nearly a mile north of impact. No direct clues.

Here are many of the shots mapped out by my reckoning:
And here is a crop of 8029 compared to a crop of 7774 (contrast and saturation adjusted), with a highlighted area across the bridge. Is that the Pentacar? Actually I think not. Perspective is tricky here, but I think the spot I'm looking for is just a bit further back than that car. I'd say I'm done here, but did get an additional excellent lead from an anonymous commenter. I have a possible name now (previously published, indirectly, but barely mentioned) for the owner of that car, and since this is an interesting case, I'll be looking a bit deeper. The commentary seemed not to want the info published, and I relish the idea of a secret here, so that lead is secret at the moment.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

GRAVY’S PENTACAR PHOTO

GRAVY’S PENTACAR PHOTO
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 24 2008 4pm



Recently I stumbled across this photo, which was posted at WTC7 Lies Pentagon evidence pages [page two in the middle]. I've never heard of any such damaged car. People mention Lloy'd cab with its windshield smashed by a light pole fragment, and a clipped truck antenna, that's it from what I had seen. In this case the passnger side window taken out; someone could've been killed, so it’s rather surprising this wasn’t in the news. Lloyd's car with not a scratch on the hood gets all that attention and this gets nothing until WTC7 Lies puts it up apparently out of nowhere. It's labeled Pentacar.jpeg. It has no caption, sources, anything. The site links to main 9/11 links page which in turn is part of "links for 9/11 Research Compiled by Mark Roberts,” also known as the JREF forum’s eminent debunker “Gravy.”

So I contacted him for more information, but he didn’t have anything ready. It was from a large collection and vaguely sourced to begin with, he said. With digging up the info it came with on his ‘to-do list,’ I’ve dug around for clues linking to it on the internet but nothing has surfaced yet. In the meantime, he did offer as precedent an account from Tony Terronez, who was headed north on Route 27, in front of the Pentagon and headed away from the impact point when the plane screeched in and impacted behind him. He saw the explosion in his rear-view mirror and ducked when he saw debris falling his way.

“[…] and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the driver's) rear windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it.”

Here we hear about additional car damage not widely-mentioned elsewhere and not seen in photos. This case was apparently from building or plane debris from the explosion (which by deflection angle would scatter thicker over the north end of the crime scene). This is clearly not the “Pentacar,” which is another story. I immediately noticed that the major dent in the door there along with the roofline damage is consistent with at least one light pole at the scene, the little-seen pole #2 with its curiously bent end. By my mapping, this pole would have been hit low by the left wing, but this bend appears near its narrow top (light truss arm missing), which I had taken as a sign of an undiscovered secondary event after it started falling. Here is my graphic, using a Bob Pugh photo of pole 2 with bystander for scale.
Now this could well be a simple geometric predisposition – I like things that fit. As others have noted, it appears the car would have been still when the pole impacted. However the scuff mark nearer the back of the car could be from the detaching lamp head, passing that spot either from the pole’s own momentum or due to the car’s. I’d wonder if the driver had time to screech to a slanted halt on seeing something headed for him, just in time to put the empty passenger’s side in its path. This could also be some kind of building debris perhaps or something else altogether. And as I stated in an earlier Loose Change Forum thread I started, as far as I could tell “this could be a simple hoax, an unrelated photo someone decided COULD fit at the Pentagon and dropped to see who bought it.”

However on the chance it is authentic, it’s worth some more analysis to determine where it was taken. Some clues offered by the scenery include: trees on both sides of the street, 2 or 3 lanes of traffic each way plus a narrow shoulder, no high concrete divider as seen elsewhere on Route 27, an angled guardrail and narrowing sidewalk on the near side, a sign and a light pole near each other on the other, set on a wooded down-slope. Shadows indicate that if this is the morning of 9/11, this car must be facing north, on the side closer to the Pentagon – in itself a problem, as that’s the wrong lane to be in to have a pole knocked into the passenger’s side by a plane approaching from the west.

The only useful help in that LCF thread came from member “Fedzcametogetme,” and it followed some paranoid accusations against me. ‘Fedz’ as I call him then dug in, and actually drove through the area several times as well as looking at satellite photos and highlighted one area on Route 27that matched the characteristics of the Pentacar photo. While I’m not even sure the photo is ON route 27 on 9/11, if it is I accept this as the most likely – the only – spot it could be (highlighted below in purple). [r-click, new window for full-size]

Consistent points: lack of any tall divider, sign-pole placement, tree shadows on the east side and trees and downward slope on the west. The only problem with this locale is that the off-ramp curving away is not evident in the photo. An overpass bridge would be the next thing visible to the right if this photo weren’t cropped,

Looking closer and using current satellite imagery, peripheral clues also match to a high degree. The sidewalk (grass strip?) seems to narrow in both photos. Sign-pole placement, the down-slope, the same problem with off-ramp unseen, The guardrail is present in satellite photos, beginning just before this spot just as the median ends before the bridge, which itself has given me useful insights on traffic planning works.

Here I will outline scenario by which this could be an authentic case of a car damaged by pole 2:

The driver was headed from home (north) to work (south), in the relatively empty southbound lane of 27 when the 757 blew noisily up Columbia Pike. Sensing its descent and predicting trouble, instinct kicks in and the driver skids to a slanted helt with the passenger’s side (empty) facing the plane’s path somewhat as its left wing severs pole 2 and sends it against that side of the stopped car, with its base on the pavement. After impact, the driver gets out, thankful to be alive, and tilts to pole up and over the embankment to where it’s seen later. The driver then reconsiders original plans. Near-death experience, etc… good enough reason to head back home. Traffic rules be damned, he/she turns around and drives against the stopped traffic, weaving around the scant cars, looking for a place to get in the northbound lane. “How am I gonna get in tho? It’s bumper-to-bumper,” he/she thinks, driving along the double then single divider. At its end, the car turns right and half-crosses the low median, waiting for the crawling traffic to give him space. Gestures are exchanged, a space made, and the driver pulls clear across to the pull-over lane and parks to think some more and take this picture. Then to home to share the tale and to catch the news of what the hell is going on. Say in 2005 or 2007 the driver finally releases this private photo to counter the growing ‘conspiracy theories,’ but the chain of custody was left unclear by some sloppiness on whoever’s part.

This of course raise a host of issues with regards to Lloyd England, who would have been right in front of this driver, and about the lack of interaction between them, and other such issues regarding traffic flow and timelines any critic might toss out. I only offer this as a basic description that could make all this evidence line up. Otherwise, it could be a motionless car stuck in northbound traffic north of impact, getting hit with some peculiar building debris like Terronez describes.

Alternately, it could be an unrelated photo from another time and place, put out by whoever for whatever reason. As Fedz at LCF finally said, in agreement with the stance I took almost right off “i wont speculate any further until the source of this pic can at least make some claims or offer some background info about this pic. since all we have is a pic but no source or even a caption, then its futile for me to dissect this matter any further.”

I offer a friendly challenge to Gravy to come up with a little info, or a confirmation of how little there is, or something. I’ve been flippant at the Loose Change Forum calling this a probable hoax, but of all people I’m truly open to whatever it might prove to be.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

LOOSE CHANGE vs. TIGHT CONTINUITY

THE CHANGE IS LOOSE AND SO IS THE BACKLASH (AND IT AIN'T PRETTY)
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 2007
updated, correction spurred by a reader, 2/12/07


After taking the underground by storm in 2005, Loose Change went mainstream in 2006, with widespread screenings, celebrity endorsemenrts, etc. By September, the Telegraph (India) reported “the runaway success of Loose Change has garnered the mainstream press’ attention and has begun to influence how the public perceives the entire 9/11 Truth Movement,” which seems to be taken by the author as a good thing for the "Truth" movement. [1] Over at least three evolving releases, the video went viral with free posting on the internet, and by the time of its second edition in 2006, it was a phenomenon. It was boosted by a more tolerant attitude in the media, no doubt partly due to receding memory of 9/11 itself. Notably, the August 2006 Vanity Fair ran an uncritical piece, whose writer Nancy Jo Sales summed up that “Loose Change has struck a nerve.” [2] Sales asked Director Dylan Avery what he thought was going to happen when this growing wave hit shore. He predicted a “second American revolution. […] There's going to be a lot of anger. […] When it becomes irrefutable public record that 9/11 was done by our government, the shit is gonna hit the fan.” [3] I have a hunch that mess will not occur in this country in any near future - after the initial long odds plus wave after wave of false promises like Loose Change leaving the movement drained, it will fall to another generation if to anyone to collectively reach and live the truth about that day.

But in the meantime, with its appeal to legitimate questions, its techno-savvy editing, and cartloads of crippling crap sneaking in behind good compelling evidence, it has risen to the top and dominated and skewed the entire field; Avery told the CBC by August its viewership was in the “millions, millions, is the best way to put it. I would even go so far as to say 100 million people have seen our film.” [4] The video remains in the top ranks of downloads, number one for a while, at Google’s new video page, and if he’s exaggerating, it isn’t by much. Reports of awkward, scripted-seeming lectures on controlled demolitions and obscure defense contractors have been sharply on the rise. Indeed, the "change" is loose.

So is the backlash, as seen in the Popular Mechanics 9/11 Myths book, and in recent 5th anniversary articles on 9/11 in Time, US News, etc. that treat the “conspiracy theories [that] won’t die” almost exclusively by examining Loose Change and its flaws, as if it were the truth movement. Their claims were lampooned prominently by South Park in October 2006.

A new internet force clearly inspired directly by the video and taking it as its window onto the movement is the Screw Loose Change weblog. The site’s “Chief,” James B., describes himself as “a combination software geek from Bellevue, part-time Chief Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard (thus the clever name), and current MBA student,” and interesting to me he’s also a “graduate in Russian and East European studies from the University of Washington.” His cohort on the site is more mysterious: Pat, like the SNL character, is just Pat. They delve well beyond Loose Change into the wider 9/11 Truth scene, who all in all give the site plenty of material to ridicule. The rich pickings, some clever words and decent work tackling them have earned them Michelle Malkin’s praise as “the single best clearinghouse on the 'net for fighting the tinfoil hat brigade.” The partisan slant is muted but evident, and clear enough from its enthusiastic support by a halfass be-bunking ‘blog called “The Truth About 9/11/01,” dedicated to the propositions that “over 90% of people don’t have common sense,” and “believing in any conspiracy theories about 9/11 is anti-american [sic].” [5]

A member of Screw Loose Change named Mark Iradian put together his own edit of Loose Change with “corrections” and commentary inserted, and released it under the title "Screw Loose Change," which like the original later spawning a revised version called the “Not Freakin’ Again Edition.” Iradian summed up his reason for the sarcastic video: “when you try to label the government for being a butcher and slaughtering 3000 of his own people, you better provide concrete evidence to back that up.” [6] Another cohort, Mark Roberts, put together a detailed critique of the video and later a list of telling interviews in which "Loose Change Creators Speak (and it ain't pretty)." The latter spawned another Iradian video of the same title comprised of audio interviews overlaid with contrasting text and images to make them look as heartless as possible in their casual mocking of the deadly attacks.

Even as disbelief of the official version surges to all-time highs on the back of Loose Change in the second half of 2006, others like James and Pat and Michelle and Mark and Mark are taking issue with their approach; Avery’s flippant attitude is one lightning rod for controversy, his laughing in phone interviews about the absurdity of hijackers taking over Flight 93 in particular with box cutters or even plastic knives. It sounded to Malkin like “a taste of how sick these people are and how much they enjoy mocking the suffering of 9/11 victims” [7] Listening to the interviews I do cringe at the lack of tact, but this of course could be blamed on Avery’s age – he’s barely out of High School remember. I also know from experience that one gets a bit desensitized when dealing with dark subjects day in and day out; the whole hallowed ground thing is hard to keep up, and gallows humor often simply happens. Ask any mortician or soldier.

Avery’s flippancy, as revealed especially in his treatment of the Bernard Browns seam, is a telling clue to the emerging script in which grave charges are laid out in a sloppy and immature way, ordinary folks see that Loose Change represents the “Truth” movement and it’s clearly wrong, and so in the long run there’s nothing to worry about. This paranoia is an adolescent phase, based on simple misunderstandings, deep anxiety and an irrational hatred of Bush, both of the latter fed by the extended Iraq War. PopMech, Screw Loose Change and the others have the misunderstandings largely under control, the Iraq war will be changing course shortly, and Bush has only two years left. And while the “Long War” rolls on into its planned decades, new battlefields are being laid out, and other elites and other catalyzing events wait in the wings, of course there are drugs to treat that anxiety and counseling to rescue minds lured by the "cynical imaginations" of "extremists here in the United States." [8]

Mary Katharine Ham’s analysis at Town hall.com is telling; after first dismissing them, she realized “I shouldn’t have moved on. I should have stopped and looked at the Truthers and listened to them a lot sooner.” She urged other to listen closer and understand – via the filter of Screw Loose Change and the PopMech book – to confront the “dangerous deniers we’re facing in our own country.” [9]

[1], [2] Ray, Turna. “11/9, a conspiracy?” September 3 2006.http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060903/asp/look/story_6682430.asp
[3] Sales, Nancy Jo. “Click Here for Conspiracy.” http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060717roco02
[4] 9/11: TRUTH, LIES AND CONSPIRACY." Iinterview with Dylan Avery. Canadian Broadcasting Croporation. August 22, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911avery.html
[5] Screw Loose Change video website. http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
[6] Welcome to the Truth about 9/11/01. http://www.threegroup.net/personal/adam/Opening.html
[7] Malkin, Michelle. The 9/11 Tinfoil Hat Brigade.” September 10 2006. http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005885.htm
[8] "9/11 Debunking the Myths." Intro. the editors. Popular Mechanics. March 2005. page 71.
[9] Ham, Mary Katharine "Beware the Truthers. Don't Ignore Them." Townhall.com. Monday, September 11, 2006 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=beware_the_truthers_dont_ignore_them&ns=MaryKatharineHam&dt=09/11/2006&page=1