New Pentagon video

[Gary Severson]

How do we explain away John Judge visiting the Pentagon the next day with his friend T. Carter who was supposed to be a stewardess on the plane that hit the Pentagon the day before. She was sick & didn't make the flight. She identified the fabric on the seats of the AA jet as the same as on the plane she would have flown on if she hadn't called in sick.

JJ is a good friend of mine, and I trust the man. That said he and I on 911 more than any other Deep Political Event have differences...as independent minded people will.

I haven't delved into this point you mentioned, but it seems to me that when airlines have seats upholstered or reupholstered, they often have part of the fleet done at the same time in the same fabrics...so I don't find it exceptional. Also, I'd not put it past the Deep Black Ops people to use a missile and include in it some pieces of a real AA plane, for 'effect' and deniability.

Peter, isn't the point that if there were recognizable upholstered seats that it at least indicates it was an airliner, whether or not the airline had many jets reupholstered at the same time?

[Charles Drago]

Peter, isn't the point that if there were recognizable upholstered seats that it at least indicates it was an airliner, whether or not the airline had many jets reupholstered at the same time?

Absolutely NOT. Such a conclusion is devoid of deep political insight.

[Gary Severson]

Peter, isn't the point that if there were recognizable upholstered seats that it at least indicates it was an airliner, whether or not the airline had many jets reupholstered at the same time?

Absolutely NOT. Such a conclusion is devoid of deep political insight.

Don't be so literal minded. An upholstered seat that looks like an airliner seat Carter recognized indicates it is an airliner seat. My comment says nothing about its provenance. I'm statrting to get the feeling this site operates like the JFK Forum.

[Lauren Johnson]

Peter, isn't the point that if there were recognizable upholstered seats that it at least indicates it was an airliner, whether or not the airline had many jets reupholstered at the same time?

Absolutely NOT. Such a conclusion is devoid of deep political insight.

Don't be so literal minded. An upholstered seat that looks like an airliner seat Carter recognized indicates it is an airliner seat. My comment says nothing about its provenance. I'm statrting to get the feeling this site operates like the JFK Forum.

In CD's defense, he is consistently a skeptic on all claims of fact and interpretation forever looking for alternatives to those claims. Therefore, when you make claims about the supposed AA seats without proposing alternatives, CD will always call you on it.

[Gary Severson]

Yes he will Lauren, but with unnecessary sarcasm. I'm sorry but sometimes that sarcasm is the result of cognitive dissonance at work when someone won't accept better info., i.e. JJ & T. Carter's experiences. It goes without saying there are alternative possibilities for this event. If one can't share info. here without qualifying it from every angle to avoid getting criticized it doesn't make for a friendly environment.

[Charles Drago]

Yes he will Lauren, but with unnecessary sarcasm. I'm sorry but sometimes that sarcasm is the result of cognitive dissonance at work when someone won't accept better info., i.e. JJ & T. Carter's experiences. It goes without saying there are alternative possibilities for this event. If one can't share info. here without qualifying it from every angle to avoid getting criticized it doesn't make for a friendly environment.

Thank you, Lauren.

Gary,

The necessity of sarcasm arises in the mind of he or she who commits it. In my mind, you regularly and urgently invite it.

What makes the Judge and Carter information "better" for you? The fact that it is offered as an argument from authority?

When you suggest that I should not "be so literal minded," and that "[a]n upholstered seat that looks like an airliner seat Carter recognized indicates it is an airliner seat," you reveal your own perspective -- one that is wholly uninformed by deep political instinct, experience, and study.

WHAT upholstered seat? You admit that your "comment says nothing about its provenance," yet you implicitly argue for its evidentiary significance.

"Evidence" for WHAT? The government's conspiracy theory, or a cover-up? Provenance is EVERYTHING in this sort of situation. Please learn this lesson.

You accuse me of fostering and/or suffering from "cognitive dissonance" -- a term first applied to deep political analysis by George Michael Evica and me, by the way -- simply because I've applied my own considerable deep political experience and study (powered by instinct) to this story.

You would have us do WHAT, exactly? Accept arguments from authority? Suspend all critical functions? Make simple-minded, flawed judgments and bow from the waist as we do so?

My intention is not to quarrel, but rather to argue. You prefer WHAT, exactly?

Finally, your reference to John Simkin's Disinformation Forum was just too soft a slap. Weak, ineffectual, laughable ... much like your criticisms of my arguments.

I must reiterate: To admit that your "comment says nothing about [the alleged seat's] provenance" is to admit that your comment is of no relevance or value to deep political inquiry.

[Charles Drago]

In CD's defense, he is consistently a skeptic on all claims of fact and interpretation forever looking for alternatives to those claims. Therefore, when you make claims about the supposed AA seats without proposing alternatives, CD will always call you on it.

Thanks again, Lauren.

To be clear, my informed skepticism about claims of fact relating to deep political matters does not originate from any uncorrectable and thus eternal pathology. It is prompted by the reality that the overwhelming majority of deep political analyses -- including some of my very own -- are fatally flawed by the absences of relevant insight, education, and/or experience. Severson's "analysis" of the alleged airliner seat stands as a textbook example.

I know that truth and, by extension, justice are attainable by humankind -- even when it comes to the subjects we struggle here to understand.

The parties responsible for the fatal attacks on JFK, RFK, MLK, the WTC, the Pentagon, and other deep political targets will continue to escape justice ONLY for as long as we believe that justice and truth in these matters are forever unattainable.

[Gary Severson]

Yes he will Lauren, but with unnecessary sarcasm. I'm sorry but sometimes that sarcasm is the result of cognitive dissonance at work when someone won't accept better info., i.e. JJ & T. Carter's experiences. It goes without saying there are alternative possibilities for this event. If one can't share info. here without qualifying it from every angle to avoid getting criticized it doesn't make for a friendly environment.

Thank you, Lauren.

Gary,

The necessity of sarcasm arises in the mind of he or she who commits it. In my mind, you regularly and urgently invite it.

What makes the Judge and Carter information "better" for you? The fact that it is offered as an argument from authority?

When you suggest that I should not "be so literal minded," and that "[a]n upholstered seat that looks like an airliner seat Carter recognized indicates it is an airliner seat," you reveal your own perspective -- one that is wholly uninformed by deep political instinct, experience, and study.

WHAT upholstered seat? You admit that your "comment says nothing about its provenance," yet you implicitly argue for its evidentiary significance.

"Evidence" for WHAT? The government's conspiracy theory, or a cover-up? Provenance is EVERYTHING in this sort of situation. Please learn this lesson.

You accuse me of fostering and/or suffering from "cognitive dissonance" -- a term first applied to deep political analysis by George Michael Evica and me, by the way -- simply because I've applied my own considerable deep political experience and study (powered by instinct) to this story.

You would have us do WHAT, exactly? Accept arguments from authority? Suspend all critical functions? Make simple-minded, flawed judgments and bow from the waist as we do so?

My intention is not to quarrel, but rather to argue. You prefer WHAT, exactly?

Finally, your reference to John Simkin's Disinformation Forum was just too soft a slap. Weak, ineffectual, laughable ... much like your criticisms of my arguments.

I must reiterate: To admit that your "comment says nothing about [the alleged seat's] provenance" is to admit that your comment is of no relevance or value to deep political inquiry.

Actually I wasn't referring to Simkin's forum but the JFK Research Forum which this one apparently is somewhat an extension of. Your ref. to my repeated calls for sarcasm seem to result from your frustration with not being able to trip me up as often as you wish whether it be about Ted Sorenson or AGW. As I said making a statement about JJ & Carter is more valuable because they have credibility here but most mainstream places they don't. But that isn't good enough for your consideration since it goes ag ainst your views. My initial response was directed to Peter. You immediately jump in & jump to a conclusion you think I have already made. And BTW my impression of the some time I spent with GME 10 yrs. ago in Mpls. was an impression of a patient scholar that had just blown me away with his presentation. Your attitude doesn't seem to come across that way at all which is bit disappointing considering his connection to you.

[Seamus Coogan]

Two days later?

Ms. Carter's observations, honest or otherwise, are worthless based on the provenance, if you will, of the "evidence" she allegedly observed.

And yes, we are left to wonder of the Judge/Carter access was unusual.

And yes, we are left with a bracelet that puts one in mind of a certain passport found on a lower Manhattan street.

I agree CD that BS bugged me about the whole 9/11 thing from the get go! Not only that the Koran they supposedly found. However 9/11 happened! That sort of crap is laughable. Like this BS footage.

[Charles Drago]

Your ref. to my repeated calls for sarcasm seem to result from your frustration with not being able to trip me up as often as you wish whether it be about Ted Sorenson or AGW.

There is no need whatsoever for me to try to "trip you up." You do a wonderful job all by your lonesome.

As I said making a statement about JJ & Carter is more valuable because they have credibility here but most mainstream places they don't. But that isn't good enough for your consideration since it goes ag ainst your views.

My conclusion that the Judge/Carter story does not pass the deep politics stink test is based not on the degree to which it may conflict with any of my own "stories," but rather on its own merits -- or lack thereof. John Judge, regardless of his credibility, is a flawed human being just like the rest of us. At times his judgment is faulty. I submit that this is one of those times -- unless, of course, you have not accurately presented his point of view here.

I honor John and his work. The latter is not holy writ.

My initial response was directed to Peter. You immediately jump in & jump to a conclusion you think I have already made.

I'll "immediately jump in" whenever I conclude that someone on this forum is peddling nonsense. Which in all likelihood means that you'll be keeping me busy.

And BTW my impression of the some time I spent with GME 10 yrs. ago in Mpls. was an impression of a patient scholar that had just blown me away with his presentation. Your attitude doesn't seem to come across that way at all which is bit disappointing considering his connection to you.

Thank you for the kind characterization of my dear, dear friend and mentor. I can never hope to approach the levels of patience he routinely exhibited for well-meaning if under-informed students of deep politics.

That being noted, George Michael did not suffer fools.