Seems I made a BIG mistake the other day. Seems I referred to the head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as an accountant. Nope. Shyam Sunder, head of NIST, head of the 9-11 investigation into Why The Towers Collapsed (Government Version) is not an accountant. My profuse apologies to the other Sunder. Seems Professor Shyam Sunder of Yale, prominent Marketing and Accounting whiz, is not the fellow I fingered.

 

And so I offer this sincere apology and retraction to Shyam Sunder of Yale. I was wrong.

 

Five years later, however, many of us are still waiting for a more profound, scholarly explanation for the collapse---dare I say eruption--of the twin towers. And many of us are still waiting for a retraction from the hundreds of government and media hypsters who pimped a war due to those 9-11 collapses.

 

Monumental Collapses of government responsibility. Monumental collapses in media responsibility. I'm still waiting for a retraction for those monumental abuses.

 

My mistake caused a bit of embarassment and shame. Theirs caused, oh, roughly several hundred thousand casualties, several hundred billions in damages, several million uprooted lives.

 

My hasty error sent nobody to the hospital. Their calculated errors sent nearly three thousand to the morgue on September 11, 2001--and many more thousands of first responders to an early, painful death.

 

I'm still waiting for a retraction from "Man of the Year," Rudy Giuliani and former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman. Seems they assured New Yorkers the air was safe immediately after the mysterious collapse of the WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. But, as anyone who knows from experience, trusting the government will get you killed.

 

And so I'd like an apology and a retraction from Giuliani and Whitman--not to mention the Environmental Protection Agency. The air was anything but safe.

Toxic would be a better way to put it.

 

By contrast, my poor research caused a bit of rancor. Their bullshit media spin caused a couple thousand more premature deaths. So, sure, I'd like a retraction. And an apology. And an immediate restitution for those killed and injured.

 

What? No retraction from FEMA? Nor an apology from NORAD? None from Donald Rumdfeld? No offers of resignation from Dick Cheney or George Bush? No retractions from all those US Senators and Congressmen who rubber-stamped the PATRIOT Act? Who rubber-stamped the imperial wars? Who rubber-stamped the revised Geneva provisions? Who rubber-stamped the Kean "Crimissions"?

 

I'm still waiting. There certainly is a lot to apologize for.

 

What? No profuse apologies from the New York Times, Washington Post or Los Angeles Times editors? No retractions or embarassed admissions from the Atlantic Monthly--one of among dozens of magazines that pimped for a war with Iraq? At least Mike Kelly, editor of the Atlantic Monthly, who personally believed in the war, lost his life there in Iraq. Everybody else who either caused 9-11 to happen or caused the wars that followed to happen (more wars coming), has remained silent and unaplogetic and profitted by the carnage.

 

Oh, sure, a couple of pundits admitted their error. But most have not.

 

Where is the retraction from prominent scientists? Most have yet to examine the piles of evidence that the entire 9-11 plot--and everything that happened after that--was a controlled demolition. Sorry, aside from Steve Jones, they are too busy with other curriculum vitae. Where are the courageous apologies from government officials? Sure, a few have come forth, but most have not.

 

Most scientists and scholars followed the example of Van Romero instead. Now Romero was one pragmatic fellow. A few days after 9-11, he issued a statement that declared the fallen towers looked like a controlled demolition. Then he retracted his statement. Seems the Pentagon may have threatened to withhold vital millions from that school of mines and engineering where Van Romero worked.

 

As for Shyam Sunder, we are still waiting. Any bets he finds nothing suspicious?

 

A noted muckraker, Ed Haas pinned down a spokeman for NIST, headed by Shyam Sunder (not the accountant). "I don't understand the public's fascination with World Trade Center Building Seven," said NIST spokesman, Michael Newman.

 

A rather strange admission for a government spokesman about a building housing sensitive and secure government offices.

 

Haas replied: "More than half of all Americans now believe the U.S. government has some complicity if not culpability regarding 9/11, with many people now believing that 9/11 is nothing more than a massive government cover-up...a possible method to reconcile the division in the United States between the government and its people might be for a series of televised national debates between his (NIST's) thirty scientists assigned to investigate how World Trade Center Buildings--1, 2, & 7 collapsed onto their footprints on September 11, 2001."

 

Haas added: "I was abruptly interrupted and told that none of the NIST scientists would participate in any public debate...When I pointed out that such a debate between the thirty scientists who worked on the NIST 9/11 Investigation and thirty equally-qualified scientists who dispute, and claim to be able to refute the NIST findings; that such a public, televised debate might actually help answer many of the public's questions and possibly restore some national unity, the NIST spokesman emphatically insisted that such a debate will never occur."

 

So let's not hold our breath. No retractions, no admissions, no apologies typifies our government. No openness likely from NIST. This from a bureau of "standards" that bold-faced, flat-out lied when it proclaimed on its website: "Why and how World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft."

 

 

What? You hadn't realized WTC-7 had also been hit by aircraft? Like you, I'm still waiting for a retraction.

 

Douglas Herman writes for Rense and apologizes when necessary.

Retractions can be emailed to Douglasherman7@yahoo.com

 

Gov't spokesman says, "I don't understand the public's fascination ...
Government spokesman says, "I don,t understand the public's fascination with World Trade Center Building Seven