Tom Danehy’s recent column has unhinged some local Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. One has sent me a 3,000-word essay that he wants me to publish; he doesn’t understand why I won’t.
While I am more than happy to publish letters that are within, say, a mile of our 250-word rough limit (even the letter we got attacking Danehy’s opinion on the basis that one shouldn’t attack another’s opinion), apparently some feel that they need almost 3 1/2 times the space of Danehy’s column to respond to it. OK then.
So conspiracy theorists … here’s your forum. Have at it. The comments section of this item is open for you. Just follow the comments policy, and you can say anything you want.
This article appears in Apr 12-18, 2007.
Whatever Happened To Girl’s High School Basketball, Tom?
STOSW (small town opinionated sports writer) seeking BTLNTVSH (big time lesbian national TV show host) to bash. Lots of anger issues. Willing to make stuff up.
Tom (liberal buddy to Emil Franzi?) Danehy doesn’t want to hear from Rosie O’Donnell anymore. He doesn’t think she represents him. I’ve got news for you, Tom. I’m a left – wing, liberal, progressive Democrat, and you don’t represent squat in my book. You are the 16 percent of Americans in the NY Times/CBS poll who swallowed the official 9/11 story hook, line, and sinker. You believe the story about the powerful, evil-doing terrorists, led by Osama Lex Luther, who attacked our beloved World Trade Center (symbol of global capitalism) and revered Pentagon (symbol of imperial American military conquest) because they hate our freedom. Well, no worries there. Our freedoms are being taken away faster than investigative journalists from the newsrooms of the American media.
You have absorbed the propaganda that people who have questions about all the inconsistencies of 9/11 are “moronic conspiracy theorists.” Where did you learn that, Tom? Perhaps from Bush’s speech to the UN General Assembly on November 10th 2001 in which he stated, “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” Hmmm. It appears Bush knew of these kooky notions, this “freakin’ stupid idiocy,” years before most of the people who are now part of the world wide 9/11 Truth movement.
I don’t normally read Danehy, so I didn’t know what his position was on 9/11 one way or the other. But now, in the course of exposing his love/hate envious desires for Rosie O’Donnell, Tom suddenly gets the Holy Spirit and is transformed into a Harvard physicist, explaining to us in amazing detail how the towers really fell. I’m guessing you subscribe to Popular Mechanics, Tom.
Tom seems perfectly OK with burning up four pages in TW talking about some high school kids who worked themselves up into a trance state, yet he is content with summing up 9/11 in a couple of paragraphs of “high school physics.” We now have the “wet pair of jeans on a clothesline” theory. Unless you are advancing the theory that WTC Building 7 was unscrewed by terrorists using the latest cordless drills, you owe it to yourself – oh yeah, and your readers – to look into the research a little more deeply.
An MIT engineer calls the official explanations “proof by computer animation.” Even the PBS mockumentary How The Towers Fell goofed a little and left the core of the buildings intact in their cartoon version of the collapse. There was no investigation. Not by the National Transportation Safety Board, not by the American Society of Civil Engineers, not by the NYFD, not even by the insurance company that is being asked to cough up seven billion dollars in payouts to WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein. Rudi Giuliani made sure there could be no investigation by quickly having all the evidence removed from the crime scene and shipped off to the Far East to be recycled. All the theories regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings are speculation. All of them. There was no evidence to look at. So when the NIST study says “this is how it happened,” what they really mean is “This is how we think it could have happened.” The steel may have gotten this hot. Some of the steel? All of the steel? No one knows. Enough to cause the buildings to collapse at freefall speed into a pile of dust? How much energy, in the form of burning kerosene, would be required to cause this catastrophic collapse? Most of the jet fuel can be clearly seen burning off in the first fifteen seconds of impact. How much was left? Has anyone ever calculated that? No, the official story says the planes hit the buildings and the fires weakened the steel, leading to collapse. The end.
OK, so maybe the folks at the Weekly are too cool, too smarmy, or just oh so bored with life that they can’t be bothered to consider all the questions surrounding the largest single attack on American soil in U.S. history. But for anyone else that maintains even the slightest naïve belief in government of, by, and for the people, the events of September 11 demand the most careful study. Yes, we were told that the attack was masterminded by Osama bin Laden, a former CIA asset in Afghanistan, and that it was brought off with military precision by a group of disgruntled Saudis with box cutters and questionable flight training. You know, standard conspiracy stuff. Sure, it could happen. The fact that large, commercial buildings have burned for over 24 hours without collapsing shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, the fact that NO large, commercial building has EVER collapsed as a result of fire shouldn’t be a problem, apparently. Oh, but no building has ever been hit by a fuel-laden plane before. After all, it took the South Tower an hour longer to fall, presumably with a lot more fuel to feed fires. Well, wait. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. In any event, just what is it that the “tin-foil hat” crowd is so worked up about? What ridiculous nonsense would they have us falling for?
1. The US government didn’t see it coming. That is patent nonsense. Condi Rice had the huevos to go on record saying, “We never thought they would use planes as weapons,” when in fact the military was running numerous war games on Sept. 11, at least one of which involved terrorists flying a plane into a building. And two days after not seeing it coming, the government produced names and photos of all nineteen highjackers.
2. Yes, the US military was running numerous war games that day. One of the largest, Operation Northern Vigilance, was staged in the western US and western Canada, conveniently drawing much of the domestically based Air Force away from the East coast. The games involved placing false radar blips on FAA control screens, virtually ensuring confusion, were anything real to occur on that day. Did bin Laden know about these exercises? I have never read any mention of it.
3. When confronted with a real situation, NORAD and the US Air Force responded with all the skill and abilities of the Keystone Cops. I absolutely refuse to believe this. This is the sort of thing they drill and practice for all the time. The only way four commercial jet airliners could stray from their paths, be identified as high-jacked planes, and fly through US airspace for up to an hour-and-a-half, with three of them reaching their intended targets, would be that the military forces protecting this country were ordered to stand down. Interestingly, orders had just been recently changed so that only the President, the vice-President, or the Secretary of Defense could order a shoot-down.
4. The kerosene jet fuel burned and weakened the steel structure of the Towers, causing them to collapse. Yes, steel will weaken when exposed to intense heat for a sustained period of time. But kerosene – burning in an uncontrolled, dispersed fire – does not burn at anywhere near the temperature required, and by all accounts the main fires lasted no more than about twenty minutes. The clouds of black smoke that continued to billow for some time after indicated that the fires were being oxygen-starved, as would be the case since elevator shafts are designed to do just that should a fire break out in a high-rise building.
5. Building Number 7. This is where the too-cool crowd really start to roll their eyes. As an aside, I really don’t understand the reaction. Sure, there are goofy conspiracy theories for just about anything. But my own personal conspiracy theory is that immediately following 9/11, a great deal of effort was put to spreading the idea throughout “in the know” circles that anything other than the “official” explanation of events was not only crazy, but naïve (heaven forbid that someone might think me naïve) and – most effective – unpatriotic. After all, we all saw it happen right before our eyes. Well, I saw it on a little TV. But still, how can you deny the facts? The truth is, all the world saw was the planes slamming into the towers, and the towers falling. Everything else has been received wisdom. But I digress. Back to Building 7. Most people I talk with don’t know what Building 7 is, or was. By 5:30 in the afternoon when it collapsed, everyone was so emotionally dazed that one more falling building didn’t much matter. Building 7 at the World Trade Center complex was about 100 yards away from the towers. It was not hit by a plane, or a missile, or by either of the towers. (The suggestion has recently been advanced that WTC7 was in fact weakened by falling debris from the towers. Show me the un-Photoshopped pictures from that day.) There were a few localized fires of unexplained origin, but other than that, it seems to have survived the attack, as did the buildings immediately across the street from the towers. Then, at 5:30 in the afternoon, it just fell down. A forty-seven story steel and reinforced concrete building collapsed into its own footprint, just like the towers did. This has to be one of the most truly bizarre aspects of the whole bizarre day, and yet very little is ever heard about it. Even the official 9/11 Commission and the NIST report both basically say, “Huh. Ya got us on that one.” And that’s it folks. Next time you go into a high-rise building, remember, it could fall down.
6. The Commission – Let me count the sins they committed. To begin, the entire tone and structure of the investigation was framed as “What went wrong?” presuming that everything happened as we were told it did. A truly neutral investigative body would be more interested in the question, “What happened?” – right or wrong. But the executive director of this commission was none other than Phillip Zelikow, a long-time employee and confidante of both Bush I & II. And why should that matter? Bush was the president, after all; the same president who stalled for more than a year before being pressured into an investigation by the families of the victims.
7. It matters because as any prosecuting attorney will tell you, one of the first questions to be asked in a criminal investigation is, “Who stood to benefit from this action?” I imagine the argument could be made that bin Laden just couldn’t think of any other way to get into one of those plush Pakistani cave-offices that are all the rage among wealthy, connected middle-eastern rebels these days. I can’t think of a better place from which to conduct world jihad than the hinterlands of Pakistan, where the Pakistani government won’t even go because it is so remote, isolated, and home to medieval tribes. On the other hand, Bush & Co. got the Patriot Act, which seemed to materialize fully formed in very short order after the attack. They got Homeland Security, which we now know gives them the right (or so they say) to do just about any damn thing they want to in the name of securing the homeland. Another aside. I have yet to figure out just what the Homeland is. It’s got a great propaganda and marketing feel to it, but I’m still a little vague on the meaning. Does it include Alaska or Hawaii? What about Puerto Rico and Guam? Are they part of the Homeland? I’m sure it has a lot to do with motherhood, apple pie, and patriotism, but I am very relieved they didn’t settle on the Fatherland.
8. Oh yeah, and they got to invade Iraq – no, liberate Iraq. Four years on, with 150,000 foreign soldiers and permanent foreign military bases on their soil, I wonder just how liberated the Iraqi people feel. At least Iraq is no longer a hotbed for Al Qaeda. No, no more of that. The fact that Bush & Co. were itching to add Iraq to their portfolios well before the events of Sept 11 shouldn’t present a problem. Even though they didn’t see 9/11 coming, they must’ve had some prescient knowledge that Sadaam was behind the whole thing, or going to be behind it, or, or something.
9. Why would Bush/Cheney go to such extreme lengths to take over an oil-rich middle-eastern country? Everyone knows they’re tough, militaristic hawks. Why didn’t they just go on TV in the spring of 2001 and say, “Look folks, we need the oil, so let’s roll.” At least that would have been fairly honest, something for which they definitely are not known. Perhaps they thought the American people – not to mention the rest of the world – might have a problem with that. Possibly. But one of the things that 9/11 unequivocally did is this. It scared the shit out of just about everyone on the planet. Not bad for a bunch of guys who say they want to secure the homeland and want the rest of us to act like patriots – or else. In the days following 9/11, when the innocent people of this country were being indoctrinated into the evils of worldwide terrorism, Bush actually looked into the camera and said, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” I believe that is a fairly accurate summary of the Patriot Act as well. Do not question our actions. We will take care of you. Dissent at your peril. Well, I’m here to tell you, it worked for me. I have had little regard for the “Bush League” since the days when former CIA director/President Poppy Bush said, “The world’s a dangerous place.” Now that I have spent the last eighteen months actually learning about the Bush family and its worldwide connections and dealings, I’m scared to death of them. I fear that this essay might actually get published. But in spite of that, I love my country more than I fear my government. I actually believed the things I was taught in school, and with the possible exception of Vietnam, I believed that America was the bright, shining beacon of hope for liberty and justice in the world. Now that I have educated myself on the ways of Bushworld, and the other folks at the top – you know, the ones who actually decide things for the rest of us – I have come to believe that liberty and justice are very far down on their lists.
Now, in this great land of ours, we are free to believe anything we want. So you can believe Tom Danehy, or you can believe Rosie O’Donnell. (I understand Danehy can be heard on AM talk radio when you’re driving through the desert on a Saturday afternoon.) Or you can believe Dan Ellsberg or Tom Clancy, neither of whom accepts the official story. You can believe hundreds of engineers, scientists, lawyers, journalists, and government officials who aren’t buying it. Or you can believe the lapdog mainstream press, and the immoral regime that it supports. Believe whoever or whatever you like. The best option however, is to read and educate yourself. If this issue concerns you, study it. Look at all sides. Ask questions, however disturbing they may be. Then you won’t need to rely on the Danehys, or the O’Reillys, or the O’Donnells for your beliefs. You can believe in yourself.
I suspect this article will generate reader mail, most of it very emotional. I only ask that TW readers question the source of their emotions. Why are they so adamantly attached to a myth that has provided the justification for all the heinous acts of a group of power-mad neo-cons who clearly despise democracy? If the events of the last five-and-a half years have got you terrified, that’s a good thing. But what you have yet to understand is that the terrorists don’t live in caves. They live in the White House.
Big Thanks to Jimmy Boegle for the electonic space. Of course, he still had to refer to us as “conspiracy theorists”. That fails to distiguish us from the apologists.
My concern is some of the compliant mailbag submissions will suddenly loose their way to paper and ink. I’ll keep an eye out for mine. Who else submitted?
JT: No worries. An appropriate representation of letters from conspiracy theorists (which is an appropriate term, I am sorry; y’all are theorizing that there was a conspiracy, so …) will run, starting the week after next. I am not a hater, yo.
Jim:
“I am sorry; y’all are theorizing that there was a conspiracy, so …”
This is precisely what the government is doing, so you do not distinquish us from the original conspiracy theorists. It is not an appropriate term.
We, along with over 90 senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials, over 120 Professors and well over 100 victims and their families (there are respected accounts of over half the victim’s families) represent what is unanimously referred to as the “911 Truth Movement”. Additional family members, whistleblowers, police, pilots and celebrities are going public with their doubts at a rate of about 2 a week.
This is happening pretty quickly so I could understand loosing track of what’s going on with this issue (i.e. new evidence, new eyewitness testimony, videotaped confessions, etc.), but, like it or not, we are part of the “911 Truth Movement” trying to get to the bottom of the official “conspiracy theory”.
Good luck with that!
Thanks, I’ll pass it along.
Theorists:
The only Danehy Sept. 11 column known to be published is: “Dressing Down.” Here’s the link:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Opinion/Content?oid=48986
Make of it what you will.
More on 911 conspiracy can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
The beauty of which is that it is one wikipedia entry that gets especially close monitoring. Hmmmmm…
And if it’s any comfort, Red Star once submitted a letter (something about predatory lesbians preying on messed up married women) to Mr. Boegle. Alas the letter was somewhere between 5 and 6 hundred words and so, well you know…
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Any theories on why?
Thanks Jimmy,
But we don’t need luck, we have already won, according to a NY times CBS Poll in October of last year, witch shows 82% of people polled don’t believe the government is telling the truth,
“Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%”
( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm )
the 911 Commission Report is a total lie, No one believes the government is being completely open with what happened on that day. Plus the body of Scientists that have come out and de-bunked the official NIST and FEMA Reports about the total collapse of the three buildings on 9/11…. simply put the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 could NOT have been the result of two airplanes crashing in to the twin towers.
So… If the people don’t buy the story, than the burden of prof is back on the government and maybe the media, but I don’t expect you to understand that. so we (the majority) will continue with our campaign of “911 Truth” and will no longer rely on the main stream media (of with you are a part of) and will continue to win the battle of public opinion. The poll spells it out, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH — 911 Was An Inside Job —
Red Star: Any comment with more than one link gets put in a queue for moderation, in an effort to avoid spam. That’s the way the filter works. And the filter saves the blog from hundreds of spam comments a day.
Dear Tom,
In your recent opinion regarding Rosie O’Donnell and the World Trade Center, you don’t mention any sources for your information. Your explanation of the collapse of the towers appears to be based upon your observations of a “wet pair of jeans on a clothesline.”
There are 118 witnesses from the FDNY that disagree with you. See Graeme McQueen’s article, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” available at http://www.journalof911studies.com (August 2006). Are these some of the people that you think are “moronic?”
I do hope that you abandon your aspirations for becoming a structural engineer.
Everything we “believe” about the world we live in is a myth.
Dude. That was, like, deep, Annie.
Jimmy Dude. Your attitude is like, so snarky. Much of what society takes for truth is largly myth. Read up on Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda. I’m wondering if journalists became so blase about social conditioning by the media shortly after William Paley (CBS) hired Bernays to work for them. Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, spent considerable time studying the function of myth in society. While at Harvard …Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”[1]”
…from Wikipedia Zelikow article
Or maybe journalists are just too hip to care.
where does the smugness come from, jimmy? what do you know that we don’t? what’s your source?
also, do you have a theory on why the bush administration dragged its feet on having any investigation at all? what could their reason possibly be? why were bush and cheney allowed to testify together and not under oath?
tom’s ever-so-scientific stance is easily enough debunked — he describes a building being pulled in on itself. me, i saw two buildings explode (and then collapse), ejecting huge chunks of structural steel outward up to 1/2 mile away. this is beyond dispute — anyone sighted person can see it happen.
so how does that gibe with the official explanation? if there was no explosion of any kind, what force acted on these large pieces of steel to send them hurtling thru the ether?
seriously, you got anything at all other than “you guyz are crazee conspiracy theorists lolomg!!!111!”
anything?
O.K., but beyond the Jimmy Boegle bashfest, here are some new developments. Kucinich has plans to introduce impeachment proceeding against Cheney. This is where testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta regarding Cheney’s stand-down order could come in handy.
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/AdamMinetaClarkePaper.pdf
This, by the way, was documented, but excluded (like many other crucial items) from the 911 Commission Report.
I’m going to sidestep the 9/11 conspiracies for now and just point at this:
I’ve been a non-fan of hers ever since I found out that she crusaded for gun control, but traveled with armed bodyguards. Strongly held political positions are cool, but hypocrisy is the kiss of death.
I don’t see it as hypocrisy.
It seems to me that it’s consistent to say that guns should be outlawed, but until such time as that happens, you may need someone to defend you in an armed society.
What’s more, gun control usually does not mean gun abolition; if we presume she really does support gun control (which is her claimed position), then there’s nothing hypocritical about her or her guard securing a gun under tight government regulation as to when it could be carried and used.
There’s more about her gun control stance on Wikipedia.
Now, back to Daheny. He writes that O’Donnell espoused the theory that “at least one of the World Trade Center buildings was destroyed by explosive charges from within.” And that’s correct.
Problem is, Daheny responds to this with analysis that includes (emphasis mine): “But it can heat it up enough for it to sag, and that’s all it takes for a steel-skeleton building like the WTC towers to come down. […] When the weakening support structure at the point of the plane crash was no longer able to support the weight of the building above it, the whole thing fell the only way it possibly could–straight down.”
Why is this a problem? Because O’Donnell was describing the collapse of WTC 7, not WTC 1 and 2, which are the ones which got hit by planes.
In other words, Daheny doesn’t respond to O’Donnell’s argument at all. He is arguing about WTC 1 and 2, when Rosie is talking about WTC 7. This is something which you, Jimmy, probably should have caught somewhere in the editing process.
It’s an inherent dishonesty in his column, since the entire thing is a strawman. Nowhere in his Tucson Weekly column does Daheny ever tell us that O’Donnell was not talking about the Twin Towers, but rather the shorter (and mostly forgotten) buildings beside it. But he argues against her as if she had, misleading his audience in the process. I’m disappointed that you let this through, Jimmy.
Does Daheny know he was being unfair to O’Donnell? I don’t know, but let’s look at the full quote (emphasis mine), again from Wikipedia:
“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade Center 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.”
What are the parts in bold? Those are the parts that Daheny quoted. Note the italiziced bit in the center that reads “World Trade Center 7. World Trade Center 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7,” — Daheny removed that entirely, with no sign that it was removed, when he quoted O’Donnell. No ellipsis (“…”) to note the removal, nor is that key part of her argument presented.
Why not? Because Daheny doesn’t have a response to that.
Popular Mechanics has a response which actually addresses O’Donnell head-on.
I’m less interested in the actual argument against conspiracy theories than with the notion of honest journalism, even from opinion column writers. Thus, whether Rosie was right or not is secondary, to me at least, to the issue of whether Daheny deliberately published an unfair and misleading attack piece on her.
And it seems that in this case, he pretty clearly did, by presenting a straw man argument rather than a factual one. Jimmy, any response to this? As editor you (or someone else in editing) should have at least made sure that your columnist was actually arguing against the right claim, correct?
Great points, Kynn. Popular Mechanics uses a forged NIST photograph to overstate the damage of WTC7. As desperate cover for WTC7, they are actually generating “data”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QJWfe6t5V8
Gee, I give y’all a widely read forum, rather than ignoring you (which would have been MUCH easier), and you use it to smack me around. Sheesh, the thanks I get.
OK, now down to the serious stuff.
I’ve made it very clear in the paper that I do not buy the Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. For one thing, I just don’t think that a conspiracy this large could be pulled off without someone coming forward with a smoking gun within 5 1/2 years (and I am sorry, but nothing presented here or elsewhere that I have seen is a smoking gun, or even close). For another thing, I don’t think the people many folks claim are behind the attacks — i.e. the neocons — are CAPABLE of pulling something like this off. Do I think some of them are evil enough to do this? Heck yeah. Do I think they could do so, so successfully? Heck no.
Having said all that … I am going to steal a comment a friend of mine made when discussing all this. He said something to the effect of: I could, with the right evidence, be convinced that there was, in fact, a conspiracy. (I don’t think there is, but is it within the realm of possibility? Yes, I suppose.) But I don’t think those of you who believe in a conspiracy could be persuaded that there WASN’T a conspiracy. As an example of this, view J.T.’s comment in No. 18 about a forged picture. What’s more likely: That WTC7 was felled by damage caused when two massive buildings nearby collapsed, or that it fell because of planted explosives, and that people are doctoring pics to cover that up? (And it’s important to note that J.T. was the one who objected to my use of the “conspiracy theory” phrase.)
So … there ya go. Those are my opinions, which could change as further evidence comes forward (though I doubt they weill). And you’re welcome to keep opining here, and in the Mailbag section of the Weekly as circumstances merit (even though, again, it would be much easier to ignore all this). Danehy says he’ll have something to say in a future column; as for me, I am done talking about this subject for now.
Editor Boegle:
Red Star thinks you did the right enough thing by providing a TW forum for the 911 Conspiracy people even though (and this is important) they have plenty of exposure as it is and has been. More important, it pleases Red Star that you not only provided them with a forum but you also implicitly and explicitly gave your own opinion (the nerve). Then they obfuscate and trash you. Smart to expose the method of a no-win situation, which is about all that comes out of this as it turns out, though some dem foax win by losing.
You may stay.
Jimmy, any response to my comments? They go not to whether there was a conspiracy (and in fact I am pretty convinced there was NOT), but as to whether your paper published a non-factual strawman argument.
Kynn: Not really. Danehy will be discussing this in an upcoming column. As for your claims that we published a nonfactual strawman argument … I don’t think that’s the case. I think Danehy’s arguments still stand up, although he should have made a clearer distinction between WTC7 and the towers. As for your expectation that every line of every column is fact-checked … that’s just not possible. And we do more fact-checking than most newspapers.
If a U.S. regulatory agency or trade group is lying to us, then we will be compelled to point it out.
This sort of vigilance is required. Our only burden is to demonstrate that the official story is wrong and that they are lying to us. What I find particularly disturbing is how willing people are to allow any sort of vague explaination of why laws of physics get to change on September 11, 2001. As someone squirms with uncomfortable truths, one of the first responses is “too many people involved” and that someone would have to break down and confess like on Perry Mason. Here again, the burden of identifying how many people are involved with this mess is not ours. If there is no accepting what took place during the Manhatttan Project, then I would ask why there is this tendency to push the incredibly huge number of people that would have to be “in the know”. Read the accounts that bring the total number down to seven (7).
Then there’s no whistleblowers. Do this mean we haven’t seen Cheney slumped in his chair crying about how “he didn’t have much longer to live so he wanted to ‘make things happen'”? No mugshot of Marvin Bush on the “Smoking Gun” website? Sibel Edmond, Willie Rodriguez, or Kevin Ryan and every police and EMT eyewitness somehow don’t count as whistle-blowers. Is that because they didn’t say “I did it!”?
It’s not our burden to convince Jimmy Boegle that 911 was an inside job. Perhaps it would be a good idea to convince Jimmy Boegle that next time a peer-reviewed study of WTC steel demonstrates an extremely high probability that thermite explosives were used, that might be news. News organizations that continue to perpetuate the myths of 911, however, are no different from the New York Times work with Judith Miller about WMD’s.
At risk of being slapped for having this opinion, regarding 9/11, what people need to understand is that even if the towers were blown up, four jumbo jets were still taken over and used as weapons. So even if one says the government blew up the towers, I believe that also means they have to agree that the government chose to destroy its own Pentagon and hijack four commercial passenger planes.
I just can’t see the government taking such heinous actions — nearly 3,000 innocents died — to promote what? To start a war?
As for your expectation that every line of every column is fact-checked … that’s just not possible.
Oh, I know that not every line is fact-checked; as a columnist myself for six months at one paper and a copy editor at another for about the same amount of time, I am well aware that mistakes can get through.
I’m just saying this is a case where I, personally, would have at least looked up the relevant passage on Wikipedia (which is what I did, in fact) before publishing. I did the same thing myself when I had to edit opinion pieces for the Aztec Press, and in several cases I bounced them back to the writer saying, “Um, sorry, I can’t print this.”
I know producing a weekly paper is difficult and shortcuts have to be taken. I just think that in this case, Daheny presented an argument about WTC 1 and 2 in response to a question about WTC 7. I think the readers would have been better served if he’d presented a more valid WTC 7 response, including a description of the fuels that were stored there. This is the bulk of a reasonable response to conspiracy theorists, and it’s missing entirely.
It’s just sloppy.
(And again, I think that conspiracy theorists don’t have a valid case, but that doesn’t mean I like seeing bogus arguments to refute them.)
Michael Whitney, you have arrived at the starting point shared by the NIST, Popular Mechanics, Nova, and the 911 Commission. The idea is to find as much evidence possible to support a desired outcome. In this case, the outcome is government’s story of 911 complete with the spontaneous collapse and annihilation of the three towers and their contents.
This is the same approach that was taken in building the case for WMD’s in Iraq. Evidence is “cherry picked” to support an outcome.
With 911, the idea of the U.S. killing its own in a theatre of horror is such a horrible act, it couldn’t possibly be true. Therefore, lets construct the science around what we’re willing to believe. Around the outcome that’s more comfortable- around an outcome I’m willing to accept, regardless of what the best evidence tells us and regardless of what our own eyes tell us.
That’s how science is ignored in exchange for what is considered “feasible”.
As a local talk show host (Gnosis or Psychosis, Saturdays 11-mid. on AM 1330, KJLL) who’s covered the issues surrounding 9/11 in some detail and worked with Tom Danehy when he and Emil Franzi broadcast from the station, I wasn’t surprised at his column on the subject. Much like his arguments about gun control, governmental abuses of power like Waco and race relations, it was ignorant, ad hominem and replete with omissions of fact and logic, and serves as a prime example of why the status quo is losing the argument. If all you can do is roll your eyes, call names and spout half-baked factoids instead of dealing with the questions raised, you’ve already lost.
There are dozens of reasons why it’s physically impossible for the trade towers to have collapsed without the aid of demolition, but the one that sticks in my craw is this: every last truss would have had to have failed at the same instant, in all three buildings, and it’s never happened before in the history of high-rise steel building fires. Or since, for that matter…bit too much of a stretch for my coincidence gland. Then there’s the scores of firefighters, police and other witnesses who reported (and continue to report) explosions both before and after the impact of the planes. Think about it: are they part of a massive, insidious plot to undermine America’s faith in their government? Or is it more likely that rogue elements within (and without) said government engineered a false-flag intelligence black op to spark long planned-for wars and pass long-desired police state laws? Which is the bigger logical stretch?
For my part, I’ll stick by the firemen and the 80-or-so percent of people in this country smart enough to realize they’re being lied to. As for Tom and the other 20-or-so percent, I can only offer the heartfelt benediction of Dr. Gonzo-“God’s mercy on you swine!”.
Without getting into the whole debate, I’d just like to respond to comment 27 by Chuck Aubrey that opinion is not fact, and belief is not evidence. What “80-or-so percent of people in this country” believe isn’t really relevant to the facts of the matter (whatever those facts may be). And Kynn, in comment 25, your dedication to fact-checking is admirable, but Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source. It’s vulnerable to “editors” with mischievous agendas, and contributors who confuse opinion with fact. I’m not saying that Wikipedia misquoted Rosie, but I wouldn’t trust it in general as a primary source of information. Or at least follow Ronald Reagan’s one good piece of advice: “Trust, but verify.”
I think it’s funny the TW editors have such a blase attitude about the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Could it be they’re afraid of being aligned with them and subsequently tarred with the same stigma?
Tom Danehy’s recent column, as well as James Reel’s above comment, are prime examples: Instead of discussing the matter directly, you pick on somebody for referring you to a Wikipedia link. (Danehy: “Wikipedia said Sinbad was dead!”)
There is no doubt that the 9/11 subject attracts its share of loonies. But even the craziest people are sometimes on to something. Conversely, often the most respectable, sober types are the last to face the truth.
Personally, I don’t “believe” in a 9/11 conspiracy. But I am completely unconvinced that the official story is true, and explanations for many of its details are inadequate to the point of unacceptability.
It is a sad thing when people who point this out are smeared as if they’re all unhinged, or even belittled in attitude. You know, some of us think it might be important enough to harp on about. Futile? Possibly. But what if it isn’t futile?
A few things stand out that make me question the official 9/11 story:
— FEMA happened to be conducting a hijacked-plane drill the very day of actual hijacked planes. Part of this drill included faking the movements of planes on the radar scopes used by real air-traffic controllers. This alone raises a flag for me: What are the chances of such a drill taking place during the hours of an actual hijacking? FEMA had moved its headquarters into an office in Battery Park, where the Twin Towers stood. Sure, it could be a coincidence….but come on, you’ve got to admit it’s a huge one.
— Tom Danehy discusses that WTC building #7 was only a football field away from the Twin Towers. Danehy fails to mention that there was a large building between WTC 7 and WTC 1 & 2. (I think it was 4.) This building sustained far more direct damage from the towers than WTC7 did, including observable structural damage. Danehy also focuses way too much on Rosie O’Donnell, who is not a good spokesperson for any cause, let alone this one, since she’s so easy to take potshots at. But O’Donnell is correct to point out that even an extended fire should not have caused the building to suddenly drop like WTC7. The building fell exactly like a planned demolition, “into its own footprint” as they say. Many people in the know said that the building was “pulled” which means intentionally blown up. Yet all investigation into what really happened has been rendered classified. One theory is that WTC7 was used as an operational headquarters for 9/11 and it was blown up to destroy all evidence after the fact. Whether this theory is loony or not, questions about WTC7’s destruction remain.
— Two of the WTC hijackers were being monitored by the CIA as they stayed in an apartment in San Diego for at least a year prior to 9/11. The FBI requested information about these men and the CIA systematically denied it to them. Seymour Hersh has written about this and I suggest you look up his New Yorker piece from last year. The CIA finally delivered info to the FBI about these men the week after 9/11. What this suggests, to me, is that there’s a good chance the CIA knew of their plans and, for whatever reason, chose not to stop them.
— There is evidence that the WTC was going to be condemned as structurally unsound. This would mean it would have to be dismantled at great expense. This made the buildings the ideal targets for a dramatic, symbolic “false flag” attack. The man who owned the WTC has connections to the Bush family.
— G. W. Bush’s cousin, Neil (I think) Bush, was put in charge of WTC security a few months before 9/11. This is public record….look it up. What this means is that if, somehow, the WTC was set up with explosives, the perps had extremely easy security access to do so.
— The flight United 93 which supposedly plunged into the ground actually had an 8-mile debris trail. This suggests it was shot down in mid-air. Most airplane crashes only have a 1-mile (or less) debris trail. Not sure how this fits in with the conspiracy, but it does suggest the official story could be wrong. We have scant images or information about the crash site of United 93.
— Then there’s the whole bit about Jewish people videotaping the WTC from across the way in New Jersey, and dancing around celebrating. They were taken in for questioning and they turned out to be Israeli nationals who were members of the Mossad, Israel’s secret service. This is public record. They claimed they were celebrating because now the U.S. would understand Israel’s point of view, which is somewhat plausible. But still curious. There is also the question of the company Odigo, which had a small office in the WTC with a couple dozen employees. They received IMs warning them to get out of the building. This has not been disputed and you can still find small news stories to this effect online. By pointing this out I am not “blaming the Jews.” What I am saying is people did seem to have advance knowledge of the event. Whether they planned it, or merely let it happen because it would suit their interests, cannot be concluded. But my guess is that at least branches of the CIA, the NSA, and the Mossad knew something in advance.
— Stock trading for airlines saw an unusual amount of activity on September 10. There were several times the amount of stock trading for airlines while trading for all other types of businesses was stable. There are no alternative explanations for this other than various people knowing of the impending attack.
— Then Attorney General John Ashcroft insisted on only flying in private jets as of July 2001. Condoleezza Rice also discouraged the mayor of San Francisco from flying that week. The former fact has been reported in many places. The latter comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. Look these things up if you don’t believe me. Both suggest that people in the Bush Admin. knew hijackings were imminent.
— The Bush Admin. and other agencies have been extremely uncooperative in all 9/11 investigations. They have limited the media’s and the public’s access to even basic police information, labeling it sensitive and so on. Whether this means they’re hiding something is not certain. It definitely fuels speculation.
— During documented Downing Street converations between Bush and Tony Blair prior to the Iraq war, Bush tried to get Blair to agree to using a downed United Nations jet as a provocation that would justify attacking Iraq. Bush suggested paining a U.S. jet with UN colors and then purposely flying it into Iraq airspace. Blair, to his limited credit, declined this suggestion. What this shows is that Bush’s mindset is one that freely allows for creating “false flag” scenarios to do what he wants to do.
— Bush’s behavior upon first being informed of the WTC crashes was bizarre to say the least. Andy Card whispered, “We are under attack” and Bush just sat there. This is not the behavior of somebody who is completely surprised. This is the behavior of somebody who knows something about what “we are under attack” means. Bush’s later comments about the morning were fabrications. Bush said, “That morning when I saw that first plane hit the tower, I said to myself, ‘That’s one lousy pilot.'” But Bush would not have seen it that morning since footage of the first plane did not surface until much later in the day. Bush’s behavior suggests at the very least a disingenuousness.
— The Pentagon collision is something I don’t have much to say about. The public has been denied so much information there is very little to go on. The crash site didn’t much look like a plane crash but alternative explanations have been offered. Almost all surveillance footage, save for a gas station camera, has been classified. It is possible the Pentagon happened just as they say it did, but there is very little to go on. The WTC got so much coverage and attention that the Pentagon was like an afterthought in terms of reportage and details.
What we do know is the Bush Admin. is not above lying to get the things they want. They are staffed by members of the PNAC, which had a stated goal of trying to effect severe change in the Middle East that would result in securing U.S. access to oil for generations. We have seen the extreme secrecy and conspiratorial behavior of the Bushies in their energy policy, their relationship with war contractors, their firing of attorneys, their treatment of people who speak out against them, their ridiculous torture and “extraordinary rendition” policies, and much more. To these people lying is second nature. Making up false scenarios is second nature. It is very easy to see a WTC conspiracy fitting into the pattern of their behavior. With their Machiavellian mindset, they could easily have convinced themselves that killing a relatively tiny number of civilians to benefit the long-term greater good of the nation was a small price to pay.
I think the media — including Boegle, Danehy, Reel and friends — choose to ridicule 9/11 conspiracy theorists because they have few other options. Trying to really examine the subject would be too frustrating. It would be like the guys in “Zodiac,” trying to find the killer years after everybody else has given up. But that doesn’t making ridiculing people OK. Instead you should acknowledge that 9/11 questioners have very good reasons for the questions they ask. That would be more fair.
Beef: I encourage you go back and read my comment No. 19. The reason why I ridicule these Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists is because they bring it on themselves. They refuse to believe anything that disproves their view, including photographic evidence. They carry on like loons (i.e. demanding the Weekly run 3,000-word essays). However, I have not been dismissive of all Sept. 11 theorists … witness the TWO commentaries we’ve run from Randy Serraglio on the subject — even though I don’t buy his viewpoint given the current evidence. I am not making fun of these above people’s viewpoint, Beef Baloney; I am making fun of the way they go about presenting their viewpoint.
Okay, Mr. Boegle, I read your comments in Message 19. I can’t speak for “9/11 Truth Movement” people, but I do discourage you to lump them all together. Some people do invite ridicule. Keep in mind there are many other, less vocal and less loony people, who via restrained behavior call less attention to themselves.
You say that 9/11 conspiracy theorists refuse to believe anything that disproves their view, including photographic evidence. I haven’t seen people behave this way, though I imagine some do. The mechanism of belief systems is such that some will deny new evidence (questioning the source, claiming it’s doctored) while others adapt to it. I’ve seen a little of both in various 9/11 blogs. As for photographic evidence that disproves a 9/11 view, what do you mean?
I agree, demanding the Tucson Weekly carry a 3,000 word essay is loony. That’s why personal blogs exist. It also doesn’t help when the primary celebrities behind a cause are obnoxious fight-pickers like Rosie O’Donnell and friend to prostitutes Charlie Sheen. They’re the default celebrities because those more careful and protective of their careers naturally keep their mouths shut.
Boegle: In your MSG 19 explanation you say “a conspiracy this large couldn’t be pulled off without somebody coming forward.” I think this argument is more emotional than logical, but it is worth examining. Why wouldn’t anybody come forward? Here are some answers I can think of:
(1) The conspiracy was conducted by a small, organized number of people at the top, who then enlisted outside help by others who did not know the true purpose of what they were doing. The assumption that 9/11 would have required the knowledge of a vast number of people should be questioned.
(2) CIA operatives, and other spy-type workers, do exist in many places outside of government. You’d have to read up on this on your own to understand the depth of it. Do you think all those spies lost their jobs when the Cold War ended?
(3) If we assume a 9/11 conspiracy is true: People with inside knowledge of 9/11 would have had, and continue to have, much to gain from maintaining secrecy. We do know that the Bush Admin. has been very generous in granting contracts and appointments to people who are “loyal Bushies.”
(4) If we assume a 9/11 conspiracy is true pt. 2: People with inside knowledge of 9/11 would continue to have much to lose from violating secrecy. First, they would have to admit being complicit in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. The loss of reputation and career would be total. Second, they would fully expect retribution (assassination) from others involved in the secret. Even hinting at the possibility of exposure would put them at risk.
(5) If we assume… pt. 3: People with inside knowledge would have little to gain from exposing the secret. What would it be good for — a one-time book deal? To clear a conscience that couldn’t have possibly been very ethically pure to begin with?
I realize, Mr. Boegle, that all this starts to seem fantastical, and it is — since we can only guess that the inner workings of such a conspiracy. But conspiracies do occur. The Iraq war was a colossal conspiracy about which we are only just beginning to get key revelations, four years out — mostly because it’s an ongoing subject that can’t be buried. I submit that 5 1/2 years is not that long. There is no magical expiration date for the exposure of important secrets. Just think how many things we’re still finding out about previous presidencies and eras. (How long did it take to finally figure out who Deep Throat was?)
Boegle, you also state another common argument against a 9/11 conspiracy: That the neocons are too incompetent to pull it off. I think this argument is pretty weak. True, the actual Bush Admin. is incompetent at an administrative, diplomatic, and managerial level. But what about experienced organizers in parts of the CIA, NSA, or Pentagon? What about the Israeli Mossad (in the past year conclusively linked to the worst breach of Pentagon security since the Cold War)?
Keep in mind that 9/11 is not the same as a full-scale war and occupation. It is a one-time event. The competency level to pull something like this off wouldn’t be on a relatively smaller scale, with more focus on tactical military planning. Also, more importantly, saying “the neocons are too incompetent” is less convincing if the 9/11 conspiracy only involved ignoring a known threat because they knew it would play into their plans.
Regarding something else in Message 19: You write that you don’t think people who believe in a conspiracy could be persuaded that it wasn’t so. That’s a worthy point. That’s the unfortunate nature of conspiracy theories: They don’t have a lot of built-in falsifiability. Keep in mind that the opposite style of belief system, the Occam’s Razor premise (that the simplest explanation is the most likely one), also has its faults. Sometimes the simplest solution isn’t true at all. There really are cover-ups and conspiracies in this world. People really are assassinated for knowing too much (read up, for example, on David Kelly’s very likely staged suicide in London).
What I personally think is that there’s so much about the current evidence that is suspicious or bizarre, it would take a lot to reduce those feelings. But instead of providing the public with more information, the government has offered less (though some info has trickled out thanks to freedom-of-info requests). I don’t *believe* there was a 9/11 conspiracy; I believe that the official story is severely lacking.
Stigmatizing 9/11 people also makes it worse. By not acknowledging that people have legitimate concerns that are based on real problems with the official story, it only makes them collectively angrier and more determined to be heard.
Beyond that, I don’t blame you for not wanting to make it your journalistic mission to dissect 9/11. The Tucson Weekly’s focus is local and mostly “new” anyway. I also think it is very healthy for you to challenge conspiracy theorists and make them sharpen their game. (I don’t include Danehy here, though, since I don’t think zeroing in on easy targets like Wikipedia while ignoring the larger part of a person’s argument sharpens anything.)
The terrorists kicked our asses. That’s right, America got their asses handed to them on 9-11-01. JFK was killed by single guman. Theorize all you want. Just a few guys with box cutters and flight lessons.
Don’t you get it? Just a guy with a gun can take fifty of us. No conspiracy, just a freaking nut.
The official story? The commander-in-chief was reading a book at his grade level when it happened.
Candy Rice? Was probably shining her high-boots.
But what about experienced organizers in parts of the CIA, NSA, or Pentagon?
Why would people in the Pentagon “plane” their own HQ ?
Incidentally, is anyone else watching this show on Cable Access, “Prove Your Worth”? Figured I’d put that out there – this guy is really… something.
You can make all the blind assertions you want, Tortillas D’Lote, but you aren’t communicating anything of substance. I am sure it is possible the conventional wisdom is true. But you don’t know it for certain any more than I do, you merely believe what you’ve been told more readily.
Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Other times it ends up in a woman’s hoo-hah.
As for you, Michael Whitney, why wouldn’t Pentagon agents attack an area of the Pentagon? I mean, talk about a fast way to destroy evidence or remove your own people from all suspicion. Not that I’m saying I think that’s what happened.
The only thing I’m asking here is for people to open their eyes a little wider. We’ve seen other cases of things “not adding up” with the Bush administration, and they eventually turned out to be rotten. This may yet turn out to continue that pattern. Or not. But there’s no point in ruling it out.
Tucson Weekly September 11 Conspiracy Theorists nixed my mailbag submission! Boo Hoo! This relegates my response to Danehy (I know, why bother) to the long buried electronic archive. I already spent the time responding to his nonsense hoping it would hit paper and ink (see post # 2), so I’ll go ahead and post my response while “hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet”:
[This is to Tom Danehy for his foray into the world of 911 apologists.
There’s nothing that you or any other hit piece can do to explain without explosives:
1. the pools of molten steel in the basements of all three buildings.
2. the rate of descent of all three buildings. (Two at free-fall speed).
3. and the complete annihilation of all three buildings and their contents.
Your issue is that the temperatures were estimated to be around 1400 degrees fahrenheit. Before Dr. Frank Gayle of the NIST was clear that his need was to build evidence around an outcome (a spontaneous fire and gravity induced collapse), he openly stated that the WTC steel was exposed to temperatures less than 500 degrees fahrenheit. That aside, let’s assume this steel was indeed exposed to temperatures as high as 1400 degrees fahrenheit.
I quote Kevin Ryan who was with Underwriters Laboratories, which is the company that certified the steel components of all three WTC buildings, “To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report [NIST Report] suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.”
Notice that is 1100 degrees Celsius. It appears that you, Tom, are the one supporting a moronic conspiracy theory. ]
And here’s my attempt to get a confirmation that they actually recieved my mailbag submission:
[start]
From: (omitted)
Subject: Fwd: Submission to Mailbag
Date: April 22, 2007 12:52:51 AM MST
To: mailbag@tucsonweekly.com
Just in case, please send a confirmation that you received this mailbag submission [below] presented on April 11th .
I know it was sent, but I don’t want this one hitting the “surf wave of ambiguity”. The “gee, we never
got it” phenomenon.
I’d like to know (whether you print it or not) that you indeed received it.
Could you send some sort of confirmation to me?
Thanks,
J.T. Waldron [End]
And there was no reply. (sniff)
In fairness, they are most certainly busy. In the next largest recent thread, you could see almost the whole staff writing notes to each other in a blog about an uptight coffee shop that won’t carry “Tucson Weekly’s”.
J.T.: Um, don’t recall getting either of those e-mails. If you want to verify that someone got an e-mail, is sending another e-mail the smartest thing to do?!? Seriously. But we did run three other letters AND a link to this blog post. You’re welcome for that.
Sobering questions are surfacing as a consequence of simple observations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers (one such observation would be to watch a film of a controlled demolition and then watch a film of the collapse of the towers.) There are several reputable groups and individuals out there asking those questions. It is easy to accept (on faith it seems, as there was no criminal investigation done on the towers) the conspiracy theory put forth by the government. It is easy because the ensuing questions would be and are, profoundly disturbing. Should we face those questions or dismiss them altogether because they are uncomfortable, unthinkable?
It’s true, with the glut of information we have access to it can be difficult to find truth. Yet we still need to look. We still need to inquire. We still need courage to do both and we need attitudes and practices that will help us face that which is most difficult in the process as well as forums where we can do so.
I wonder if the Tucson Weekly has any interest in asking some of those questions in order to approach the answers with clear thinking, reasoning and dialog; leaving behind attitudes dismissive and sarcastic? Or are there risks, like the kind Rosie seems to be facing even asking them? And what of the risks of not asking them?
Let there be room to consider even the unthinkable, because we all know that on occasion the unthinkable occurs.
L. Zmira
Hey J.T. Waldron: Be nice. Maintain dignity and grace, lest ye get lumped in with the “conspiracy theory loonies.” People are all too eager to do such lumping.
A couple of tips:
(1) Don’t make a fuss over whether your mail gets published or not. That makes you sound demanding. If you want mail read and published, send it carefully and make sure it’s well-written, pithy, and makes a solid argument. Always strive to enhance the power of your arguments, through facts and references and sound reason. People can put you down all they want but they’ll end up the ones who look like nitwits if they fail to address a good argument.
(2) Don’t give TW staffers a hard time for blogging and communicating about semi-trivial matters here. At least with blogs you can directly communicate with the publisher and get a response. Blogs are something most publications are doing now to increase their online exposure and readership, as they watch their paper circulations slowly decline. Also I think Boegle complaining about a coffee shop that doesn’t carry Weeklys for a bogus reason is something he has every right to gripe about. Also, remember that these people are human and need to vent and have fun to stay sane while they sit in their offices all day hashing through text.
Anyway, check out Danehy’s column this week. He’s turned away from the subject of 9/11 for a hard-hitting column on how people should be better drivers. Coming soon: Danehy writes a column complaining about the neighborhood kids who walk across his lawn.