1115.org

Comments

1. sarabeth wrote:

   Well, well, well! Rudy G.’s campaign is showing their true colors. Here’s what Rudy stands for:

   Apparently, at a recent press conference, Rudy Giuliani was asked a question (actually, it was one of his staff members) about his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers - and the reporter was arrested at the orders of Giuliani’s press secretary. The reporter was taken to jail - in violation of the First Amendment - and is being charged with felony criminial trespass. Because the reporter was using a camera, state police are even considering charges of espionage. More details can be found here.

   Also interesting that the New Hampshire police takes orders from Giuliani’s press secretary.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 9:15 am ¶

2. sac wrote:

   That is outrageous. It will be fun to see the damage control on this one.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 9:31 am ¶

3. sarabeth wrote:

   Correction to the post:
   Rudy would maximize his chances of being elected president if he made no public appearances whatsoever, made no speeches, gave no interviews, appeared at no debates, and replaced all campaign staff by robots and machines.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 9:40 am ¶

4. sarabeth wrote:

   Update from Prison Planet:

   In addition to the details that were already outlined in our previous article, fellow We Are Change member Luke Rudkowski also related how he was just silently filming the fracas when Giuliani staffers, and in particular one unidentified female, started hitting and attempting to steal his camera, before Lepacek and Rudkowski were pointed out by the staffers and five to seven police arrived to grab them and throw them out of the building.

   The female staffer was witnessed to be instrumental in alerting the police to the “crime” of Lepacek asking a question that the Giuliani camp weren’t comfortable with.

   Rudkowski was assaulted and questioned on who he was working for despite the fact that he hadn’t even asked a question and was standing separately from Lepacek.

   Lepacek was told that other eyewitnesses saw police stamp on one of the cameras as it lay on the floor.

   Another eyewitness said that the entire arrest was clearly being directed by Secret Service, who were ordering the police to threaten anyone who asked questions about the incident with arrest.

   Lepacek was later released on $400 bail but faces charges of criminal trespassing even though he had obtained a CNN press pass well in advance and the debate was a public event. State police have refused to hand back electronic equipment that they seized from the group.

   CNN staff attempted to dissuade police from arresting Lepacek as he was led out into the parking lot but were ignored.

   Presidential candidate Ron Paul was informed about what had occurred and stated words to the effect that while we are supposed to be spreading freedom and democracy abroad, we couldn’t even handle it in New Hampshire.
   [...]
   The actions of the New Hampshire State Police were completely unconstitutional and we are now pursuing criminal indictments against the police involved as well as the Giuliani staffers that assaulted the group and their property, and demanding that any charges against Matt Lepacek be dropped immediately.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 10:06 am ¶

5. JimC wrote:

   What does “his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers” mean exactly?

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 10:35 am ¶

6. matt wrote:

   What does “his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers” mean exactly?

   for the purposes of this post, or really anything else, what is the difference?

   his could have asked him if his mother was a martian, and it wouldn’t merit jail time.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 11:05 am ¶

7. sarabeth wrote:

   that being said, it seems to mean that sometime after the towers had been been hit and before they actually collapsed, Giuliani had been told they would probably collapse (but warnings to this effect were not issued, either to the public or to emergency workers).

   there is no evidence that this is anything more than a crackpot theory.

   the allegation seems to be that Giuliani had revealed this to Peter Jennings. hard to see Jennings conspiring to keep it quiet.

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 11:31 am ¶

8. JimC wrote:

   Thanks for the background! And I agree it does not matter but just didn’t know the reference….

   Posted 07 Jun 2007 at 1:29 pm ¶

9. sarabeth wrote:

   Looks like the “prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers” allegation is indeed true.

   Winifred Lauder at Huffington Post links to a site with video of the Jennings interview and a quote:

   I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.

   See also Raw Story.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 9:45 am ¶

10. JimC wrote:

    Looks like the “prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers” allegation is indeed true.

    “prior knowledge” but how much prior knowledge, 30 secs, 2 mins, half an hour? That’s still not clear…and so I ask (these activists), what exactly is the conspiracy here? Does anyone else know?

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 11:51 am ¶

11. sarabeth wrote:

    1) If Rudee hadn’t taken the fifth on this, maybe we would know how much warning he had. Instead of coming clean, he seems to be denying he said even this much.

    2) Just commonsense dictates that he couldn’t have been told with any certainty how long it would be before the collapse took place. So the point is not whether it actually took 2 minutes or 20. The point is that he was told the towers would collapse, and no general warning went out. That’s simply unconscionable.

    Does that answer your question “what exactly is the conspiracy here”?

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 12:39 pm ¶

12. matt wrote:

    “prior knowledge” but how much prior knowledge, 30 secs, 2 mins, half an hour?

    i’m predicting a “responsible but not at fault” defense coming any minute now.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶

13. JimC wrote:

    Does that answer your question “what exactly is the conspiracy here”?blockquote>

    No, it doesn’t because the premise of this conspiracy is ridiculous. There were so many failures across a broad spectrum of areas that day, the conspiracy theorist, in order to pin blood on Rudy’s hands would have to prove that conspiracy based on a sequence of events without timeframes, without evidence of communications (or lack of), without knowing what discussions or what factors were being weighed, without taking into consideration the sheer magnitude and surreal events that were happening, without taking into account that ordinary human beings were attempting to organize rescue efforts in the face of the worst unprecedented attack on our country ever. Absolutely groundless and unnecessary for these people to try to lay blame for *any* deaths that day at the hands of Rudy or any other official who actually tried to do something on the horrific day. There is no defense for such accusations and furthermore a non-response is totally warranted on the part of Rudy. I hope he never responds to such crap as put forth by these nut jobs that clearly have too much time on their hands. I mean that in the most respectful way if any of them read this.

    i’m predicting a “responsible but not at fault” defense coming any minute now.

    No, I think arab men who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the towers are responsible and therefore their fault.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 8:57 pm ¶

14. JimC wrote:

    Stupid blockquote….sorry hope you can figure out what is not supposed to be in the blockquote

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 8:59 pm ¶

15. matt wrote:

    No, I think arab men who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the towers are responsible and therefore their fault.

    i’ll warn you again. you know damn well this isn’t the point. don’t play games.

    sarabeth wrote:

    The point is that he was told the towers would collapse, and no general warning went out. That’s simply unconscionable.

    that’s the issue at hand, not who knocked the building down, and you know this. and why is it that you felt the need to mention that they were arab? unless you have a good reason for that, it reeks of straight up racism.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 9:21 pm ¶

16. JimC wrote:

    Matt, I’m sorry but I have to ask what you are going off on?

    Let me repost my statement that got blocked in with my misplaced blockquote..

    “No, it doesn’t because the premise of this conspiracy is ridiculous. There were so many failures across a broad spectrum of areas that day, the conspiracy theorist, in order to pin blood on Rudy’s hands would have to prove that conspiracy based on a sequence of events without timeframes, without evidence of communications (or lack of), without knowing what discussions or what factors were being weighed, without taking into consideration the sheer magnitude and surreal events that were happening, without taking into account that ordinary human beings were attempting to organize rescue efforts in the face of the worst unprecedented attack on our country ever. Absolutely groundless and unnecessary for these people to try to lay blame for *any* deaths that day at the hands of Rudy or any other official who actually tried to do something on the horrific day. There is no defense for such accusations and furthermore a non-response is totally warranted on the part of Rudy. I hope he never responds to such crap as put forth by these nut jobs that clearly have too much time on their hands. I mean that in the most respectful way if any of them read this.”

    Now that you can read the response to the “issue at hand” let me address your other objection.

    The “No, I think arab men…” statement was a direct response to your presumption that I would say it was Rudy’s “responsibility but not his fault”, I simply was correcting you in that I don’t believe that premise at all. It was neither Rudy’s responsibility nor his fault, for failing to issue a warning, thereby the conclusion that these conspiracy theorists are claiming, Rudy has blood on his hands, is ridiculous because the “blood” is all on those who committed the terror attack which, not being racist, were in fact arab men, unless of course you believe the conspiracy theories which claim it was an inside job.

    Is this clearer?

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 10:02 pm ¶

17. sarabeth wrote:

    JimC: what’s all this conspiracy shit you’re going on about? I have not endorsed or advocated any conspiracy theory. I have simply given you Rudee’s own words.

    I asked a very simple question. Matt helpfully underlined it for you.

    You want to debate conspiracy shit, go to the damn conspiracy sites.

    You want to respond to what Matt and I are actually saying here, we’re all ears.

    The point is that he was told the towers would collapse, and no general warning went out. That’s simply unconscionable.

    You actually disagree with that? You don’t think the mayor of New York City, who had taken command control of the immediate response to the attack, had a clear responsibility to issue a warning that the towers were about to collapse?

    That seems to be what you said, though I have great trouble believing anyone could think or say that.

    It’s really funny that someone who can say this would describe anyone else as “nut jobs”.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 7:38 am ¶

18. sarabeth wrote:

    Between this comment on “No Kidding”, and the stuff he’s spouted in this thread, it very much looks like the old JimC is back.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 7:42 am ¶

19. JimC wrote:

    I have not endorsed or advocated any conspiracy theory.

    I never said you did. I was talking about the man who was arrested and the group he represents. Never once did I imply you or anyone else here believes or endorses this theory.

    You actually disagree with that? You don’t think the mayor of New York City, who had taken command control of the immediate response to the attack, had a clear responsibility to issue a warning that the towers were about to collapse?

    I do actually because from his own words he says

    I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street…and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building…

    Now he doesn’t say what if anything happened in between the time “[they] were told [it] was going to collapse” and when it actually collapsed. There could be indication here that they tried to escape the building they were in before the collapse but that is not clearly evident beyond question. Nor is there any indication that an attempt was made or not made to warn anyone else, i.e. do we know if they have proper communications setup to give out such a warning? So without any hard evidence showing or indicating that Rudy or anyone else knew the towers were going to collapse and did nothing to warn anyone else, there is no cause, nor reason for this group to harass him or his aides.

    Having said that, I am merely exploring the revised information you gave in regards to the “prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers” allegation and in no way am I implying you endorse said information nor blame Rudy for the deaths of anyone during the WTC collapse. Even though you assert the “old JimC” is back, I will inform you that I am being extra careful not to imply, infer, or otherwise attribute anything to you. If I do you will know it. I don’t think asking questions about things you address or directly quote is out of bounds, is it? And if the comments and responses take us down a road of discovery, is that wrong/bad?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 1:24 pm ¶

20. sarabeth wrote:

    That is so full of hogwash, I don’t even know where to begin.

    without any hard evidence showing or indicating that Rudy or anyone else knew the towers were going to collapse

    He said it himself. His own words are on tape. And you’re asking for evidence? Maybe Jennings should have sworn him in first? then we could call it testimony and evidence? Or maybe you would still have quibbled that it was a telephone interview so we couldn’t be sure he had actually put his hand on a bible?

    and did nothing to warn anyone else

    I’m guessing that to most people the evidence here is the fact that no warning went out.

    do we know if they have proper communications setup to give out such a warning

    You better believe that we do. He was in command control of the biggest tragedy that had ever befallen a major American city (creaming his pants every step of the way at the political capital he was going to generate by taking charge). You better believe that included — borrowing Chertoff’s memorable words — a hardened set of expanded communication capabilities.

    Finally, in response to

    The point is that he was told the towers would collapse, and no general warning went out. That’s simply unconscionable.

    you went back to “the man who was arrested and the group he represents” and started ranting about his conspiracy theories, throwing in some gratuitous bullshit about arabs? That’s pretty damn impressive deliberate obfuscation, even for old JimC.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 2:53 pm ¶

21. JimC wrote:

    He said it himself. His own words are on tape. And you’re asking for evidence? Maybe Jennings should have sworn him in first? then we could call it testimony and evidence? Or maybe you would still have quibbled that it was a telephone interview so we couldn’t be sure he had actually put his hand on a bible?

    No, I’m saying that in the chaos of the incredible and surreal events that unfolded that day, it just perhaps might have been a mistake or failure in communication or not enough time to disseminate such a warning before the building collapsed, but in any case it is not something to harass him about 6 years later. I know Rudy’s good but he’s no superman…and he’s also not my pick for President, so that has nothing to do with my motivations. I just think it is a bit harsh to criticize someone who obviously faced the most traumatic event in US history as a mayor. They, city officials just might not have known what to do…and I don’t blame them for that.

    you went back to “the man who was arrested and the group he represents” and started ranting about his conspiracy theories, throwing in some gratuitous bullshit about arabs? That’s pretty damn impressive deliberate obfuscation, even for old JimC.

    The comment about the Arab hijackers was a direct response to Matt’s presumption that I would use the defense that it was “Rudy’s responsibility but not his fault”. That wasn’t obfuscation that was a correction of a presumptuous statement.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:39 pm ¶

22. sarabeth wrote:

    No, I’m saying that in the chaos of the incredible and surreal events that unfolded that day, it just perhaps might have been a mistake or failure in communication or not enough time to disseminate such a warning before the building collapsed, but in any case it is not something to harass him about 6 years later.

    that’s absolutely crazy. (Plus, you’re trying to claim with a straight face that when you asked for evidence this is what you meant?)

    I just think it is a bit harsh to criticize someone who obviously faced the most traumatic event in US history as a mayor.

    when that’s his sole platform, his brilliant leadership in the immediate aftermath of the attacks? get real!

    The comment about the Arab hijackers was a direct response to Matt’s presumption that I would use the defense that it was “Rudy’s responsibility but not his fault”. That wasn’t obfuscation that was a correction of a presumptuous statement.

    Yes that was a brilliant thesis you propounded, that it wasn’t even his responsibility. Way to knock the wind out of Matt!

    And what of going back to “the man who was arrested and the group he represents” and ranting about his conspiracy theories?

    I find that I am a couple of inches away from lapsing into “go fuck a duck” so I will now reluctantly disengage from this fruitless exchange with old JimC.

    So long!

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 4:14 pm ¶

Post a Comment