A scholarly, civilized exchange between Prof. Mark Vorobej and Barrie Zwicker

Update 12/3/07

9/11 Truth and the WTC Destruction Debate


via 911 Truth Movement on 11/15/07

The pair of Letters added today to the Journal of 9/11 Studies illustrates how a civil discussion can take place, even when one party is critiquing another’s work.

Prof. Mark Vorobej sent a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies which included a critique of some material in Barrie Zwicker’s book, “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11.” Of course, the editors allowed Barrie to reply — a courtesy we extend in all such cases. That is, if one finds his work criticized by another, then he or she has a standing invitation to respond. This invitation stands to all authors who find their work critiqued by another research. And most journals extend the same courtesy — hence the importance of responding to such authors as Bazant and Seffen… But I digress…

Barrie Zwicker offers a gentlemanly, exemplary response to, and comments upon,
the paper “Cumulative Arguments and Smoking Guns” by Mark Vorobej. He writes:

Vote Result

Score: 10.0, Votes: 8

read more

Things you can do from here:


9/11 Truth: Massively Important

Letter from Prof. David Ray Griffin

The Appeal to NIST was penned mainly by James Gourley and he deserves recognition for his work in the 9/11 Truth movement. It is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf James and I have written a technical paper which we hope will be published soon. (I’m going to ask you to do a little prepatory homework; please work through the problems here: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.html . All four lessons are helpful.)

And we can all look forward to the updated edition of The New Pearl Harbor by Prof. Griffin! Thank you for your work, David. It’s great to work with you and James and all the folks named above — and all those throughout the world contributing to this critically important cause for justice and peace.

blog it

Tell the Truth about the Dust

clipped from www.newsday.com
Children exposed to World Trade Center dust are at much higher risk for respiratory problems, and in some cases are twice as likely as their peers to develop asthma, according to a city Health Department survey released yesterday.
The survey of the 3,100 children who are enrolled in the city’s World Trade Center Health Registry found that being caught in the dust cloud in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack was the single biggest risk factor in developing respiratory problems.
Half of all children enrolled in the registry developed a new or worsening breathing problem. But those who were caught in the massive dust plume were diagnosed with asthma at double the rate of those who were not.
blog it

Breakthroughs Toward Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the…

This blogger is leery of the information presented here. However, for now, I’ll remain agnostic toward many of the issues discussed below.

via World Trade Center Demolition by spooked on 11/12/07

By The Anonymous Physicist

This article will include breakthroughs that may provide a complete understanding of all the anomalous matters in the nuclear destruction of the WTC. My previous articles on the WTC nuclear destruction of the WTC, and its aftermath are here and here. There is much evidence that the sub-basement of WTC 1 was hit with a nuclear bomb around the time of the first “plane hit. The accounts (I have previously given) of surviving burn victim Felipe David and stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, strongly indicate that this sub-basement, massive blast was nuclear. My article on Felipe David made clear that David’s hanging and burnt skin was from the radiation from a nuke. Pecoraro’s account of a vaporized 50 ton hydraulic press, missing parking garage, and the 300 pound steel and concrete door shriveled up “like aluminum foil” also were from this nuke. We also had phone outage from an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) that is part of a nuclear bomb’s effects, at this time and long before the tower’s destruction, as you can read here. Perhaps the early-on EMP is why there were so many military helicopters and planes at the towers— possibly even initiating conventional and/or nuclear explosions, including the final nuclear destruction, via direct line-of-sight lasers into the towers, because radio communications either failed or could not be counted upon, after the first nuke (and EMP).

Now regarding the nuking of the WTC, let me re-introduce the crucial concept of “redundancy.” When the PTB decide to do something, and that it must not fail, various forms of redundancy are utilized. If a nuke is to go off in the basement, and say on several upper floors, they would likely have emplaced more than one at each of those levels. Why? Because nukes have been known to fail to detonate, or fail to detonate with their maximum potential. To have a nuclear bomb go off with its maximum potential devastation achieved is very complicated and intertwined. Maximizing the nuclear chain reaction— while necessarily minimizing the time interval of the chain reaction, after having a successful, complicated, conventional explosion, involves many things being done near perfectly— including having properly manufactured/enhanced substances, and triggering mechanisms. This can never be 100% guaranteed. (I am assuming that the trigger is conventional explosives, as opposed to possible newer modalities including laser or sound waves.) We also have Bill Deagle relating how an ATF agent from the OKC bombing told him he removed unused extra— i.e. redundant– micro-nukes from the Murrah building. If a nuke at a level is crucial for the demolition scenario (including its secondary, fall-back scenarios), there likely was more than one there, in case the first “fizzled.”

Because with a fizzled, crucial nuke, the failed remains would provide a giveaway that the regime itself just tried to nuke the WTC. Clearly the plan called for the complete destruction of the WTC, followed by evidence removal. Now, I assert that great redundancy, and the alternative (bottom up) tower destruction mechanism, and “leaning” (recall my John Miller piece) scenarios, were partially employed, or prepared, because this was the first time a top-bottom set of nukes going off vertically, and very complexly, and timed with conventional explosives was done. Indeed the bogus “leaning” was the fall back scenario if the planned nuking scenario proved untenable. And things did not go perfectly at all. There would be numerous “fizzled” nukes!

While we can never know with certainty which type(s) of nukes were employed, they would likely have used ones that were likely the most dependable. Now the evidence indicates that both fission and fusion occurred at the WTC. The govt’s publicly released studies found Uranium, and Tritium (fusion source); while Plutonium was never tested for (or such data was not released.) Relatively massive amounts of Strontium and Barium were found in the dust in at least one WTC area, conclusive to William Tahil that a significant amount of fission occurred. So the presence of both tritium and fission by-products (Strontium and Barium are by-products of the fission of Uranium or Plutonium) indicate that fission and fusion took place. Tritium boosting (fusion) has been incorporated into fission bombs. These nukes may have been thought to be the most dependable. “Fusion boosted fission bombs can also be made immune to radiation from nearby nuclear explosions which can cause other designs to predetonate, blowing themselves apart without achieving a high yield. The combination of reduced weight in relation to yield and immunity to radiation means that most modern nuclear weapons are fusion boosted.” But Wikipedia is CIA-connected. And note the conflict between the alleged “immune to radiation” claim and the information, I will reveal shortly, that neutrinos can, in effect, “evaporate” sufficient nuclear material to prevent a full chain reaction.

So let us assume this type of nuke was used, and that several of them “fizzled.” First I need to clarify the difference in “fizzling” that I will delve into now, and the fizzled nukes I wrote of in my first articles. The core idea is the same— nuclear bomb fragments gave rise to the “China Syndrome”. But earlier I wrote of exploded nukes that impacted unexploded nukes. The latter then giving rise to these fragments, as is, or partially detonating thereafter. But now I will highlight crucial, new evidence that indicates numerous nukes “fizzled” on their own, through likely sabotage, and not from the effects of other nukes. When these nukes that would “fizzle” were triggered, there are several possibilities. If their conventional triggering explosives failed, there would be nothing. If these powerful, conventional explosives went off (and the evidence herein indicates they did), there would be blast from this; and likely some subsequent, partial nuclear criticality would have been attained with some, or all, of these fizzled nukes. But the blast, and neutron, and other, radiation released was a fraction of what was supposed to happen— and insufficient to bring down a building such as WTC7. The result was a (much) smaller nuke going off, and the beginning of the China Syndrome of nuclear reacting fragments exploded about— but perhaps mostly in the basements, if that’s where the first nukes went off, as is probable. These fragments would be the HEAT SOURCE that would give rise to the molten steel at the bottoms of the three WTC skyscrapers in the coming months. The molten steel’s heat source was the remnants from fizzled (likely sabotaged) nukes. These sub-basement nuke fragments were unable to be completely removed, according to the evidence and logic I have presented, for six months, or so. Now if a “fizzled” nuke went off high up, in one of the twin towers, it would likely disperse these fragments about the WTC (with much finer “bits” dispersed much farther out), and give rise to more widespread, but lower level of heat that was measured.

How many fizzled nukes were there? I can only surmise. At least two for WTC7 (the first, and at least one redundant one), and one or more per tower. Remember that the three skyscrapers had molten steel underneath them for months. That would be a minimum of four fizzled nukes. If the Murrah/OKC Deagle story is true (ATF agents removed several, unexploded micro-nukes), there may have been significantly more than these four, at the WTC. I believe all the evidence indicates that there were likely more than these four. I also assert that the likely reason there were numerous defective nukes is because they had been sabotaged— and this was not realized by the perps until after the fact! There are numerous possibilities. This could have been performed by elements of the military who tried to save Americans from their fate. Another possibility is that the nukes could have been hidden in place for a long time, and gone bad. (Not probable, IMO.) Sabotage could have been performed by others, even from far away, such as with neutrino beams, even through the Earth. As the end of this article indicates, neutrino-irradiated nukes may act as if they have undergone effective “evaporation of nuclear material.” And this negates the wiki/CIA claim above that these, or any other, nukes are “immune to all radiation.” Here we learn that Japan, in 1999, began through the Earth neutrino beaming, to distant targets. Always remember that with such military and nuclear matters, and technologies, public release of information is often decades after actual military use has gone on. There are other possibilities that could have led to the unknowing emplacement of sabotaged nukes, but that is described elsewhere by me. Successful, redundant or replacement nukes may have been of a different design, or intensity, than the ones that “fizzled”.

Note that the scenario of a small nuke whose core is sabotaged, via removal of sufficient fissile material to prevent complete criticality, and full chain reaction, was depicted in the 1997 Kidman/Clooney movie, “Peacemaker.” This form of sabotage would not likely be relevant here (due to detectability by the perps emplacing them.) More likely is the scenario (neutrinos) described above (or something similar), that would have allowed for having previously, and surreptiously sabotaged numerous nukes.

What happened, and didn’t happen, to WTC7 is crucial to this scenario. New information regarding earlier explosions in WTC7 will soon be detailed. Recall the following. I first wrote that WTC7’s demise was a conventional controlled demolition (CD). Then in a later article, I revised this and wrote that I had become certain that WTC7 was a nuclear CD, not a conventional CD. I quoted the unimpeachable source, Fire Engineering Professor, Dr. Barnett who had observed remnants of vaporized steel “from extraordinarily high temperatures” in the WTC7 rubble. I had conclusively proven, by then, that the months long eyewitnessed and photographed high temperatures and molten steel was accurate despite all the desperate disinfo from the OCT and DEW crowd(s). The difference between my earlier WTC7 hypotheses and this article is, in part, due to the well-hidden fact of WTC7 explosions during the time of the towers’ destructions. It is now clear to me that they didn’t demolish WTC7 earlier that morning, because they couldn’t— but not the way I wrote months ago. They couldn’t destroy WTC7 early that morning, because they tried, and it “fizzled.”

Let us now examine WTC7 in detail. We have Tris McCall of Jersey City, NJ. on November 24, 2003 stating, “I said I’d talk a little bit more about WTC7…From our vantage point atop the palisade, we could see the top stories of the trapezoidal structure peeking out between the skyscrapers of Battery Park City….Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. …it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that’s exactly what I thought had occurred.” On 9/11 itself, the major media put this out: “After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel. They were the only ones there. They felt and heard another explosion, probably the collapse of one building. He broke a window and screamed for help. Then they went down a stairwell. “I told Hess, `We’ve got to try to get out of here.”‘ They got to the lobby, or what was left of it. “I thought I was dead. The whole building shook. … I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell. It was like a bad movie. Though covered in soot, Jennings was not physically injured. He said Hess escaped safely as well.” Note how the article tries to claim that the lobby blast was from the collapse of another WTC building. But now we learn that Jennings was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept. of the NYC Housing Authority, and is now stating he is certain that he heard and felt explosions in WTC7, shortly after 9 A.M. First as he is coming down the stairs at about the eighth floor. Then there is proof of a large explosion that impacts the WTC7 lobby. Jennings first indicates he is sure the “fuel/oil tank explosion” explanation is bogus. Then he says, “I heard explosions… [Note the plural.] The lobby was totally destroyed… They had to take me out through a make-shift hole in the wall the fire dept. had to make to get me out.” Then Alex Jones comes on this Youtube piece and says that all this happened within minutes of the first “plane hit”— before either tower’s “collapse.” Other information is that this happened in between the two tower demolitions. Jones says that Jennings also says (in the full tape) he saw numerous dead bodies, presumably in the lobby, and was told not to look at them. Could the reason Jennings is told not to examine the bodies be that they showed evidence of being nuked?

I assert that the explosions Jennings hears, and experiences, in WTC7 were one or more fizzled nukes. What would happen to WTC7 at 5:20 P.M. was actually meant to happen at about the same time as all the other WTC buildings were destroyed! Is it not likely that WTC7 was also planned for simultaneous destruction? I don’t blame Jennings for hiding out, if his story is true, nor for being too scared for six years to tell his more complete story. Now any dead bodies Jennings saw in the WTC7 lobby, were likely from these fizzled nukes. I assert that WTC7 was not demolished early on, with the other buildings, because all its nukes– including the redundant one(s)– fizzled, as described above! I further now hypothesize that this matter, fizzled nukes, is likely the reason for the long 7-8 hour delay— even beyond the planned time that the regime errantly pre-told the media— for the WTC7 “collapse.” The perps were likely replacing defective nukes! This would have taken time to get them from wherever they were brought in from. Apparently all nukes in WTC7, despite redundancy, were defective, again, IMO, likely sabotaged. And it took a few hours to get replacements, possibly even needing time to test, or try to test, the new ones before emplacing them in WTC7? Indeed I would hypothesize that perhaps even the errant early notice to the worldwide media that WTC7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED, was once again due to another defective nuke unexpectedly “fizzling!” So it seems that my hypothesized scenario of defective, likely sabotaged, nukes and replacing them as needed (WTC7), appears to explain every single anomalous fact on 9/11, and the China Syndrome afterwards.

There are other related anomalous WTC7 matters. We see that WTC7 was ordered evacuated at 9:03. I guess the federal perps knew the end result ahead of time, and ordered their own to leave immediately, while people in WTC1 and 2 were told to stay in, or go back to, their offices!! Maximize the deaths of the citizens, and minimize the deaths of the feds. Some of the 9/11 perps may have been agents working in WTC7, but the vast majority, I would presume would not know of the matter, or its details. All reports of the earlier explosions in WTC7 would be hidden by the lackey media. During the 7-8 hour interval, firefighters were not allowed to fight the relatively small fires that likely resulted from “fizzled” nukes. You wouldn’t want firefighters to witness many things, including federal perps bringing in the replacement—- “better” nukes! Likely those perps would be wearing radiation-protecting garb. While the WTC7 fires would be “officially” blamed on ejecta from WTC 1 or 2, photos of WTC7 show limited damage to the facade which cannot account for the complete global “collapse” of the tower.

Moreover, the lobby of WTC7 was shielded by the presence of WTC6 from any ejecta from WTC1 and 2. The first WTC7 explosions are now said to have occurred before any tower destruction. Now regarding these fires several floors up, there could have been one or more mini-nukes that fizzled therein, or criticality fragments from partially exploded defective nukes could have been blasted up a few floors. Recall the Chernobyl core explosion that blasted off the roof itself and left some 30 criticality fragments burning away on the roofs of adjacent buildings— the China Syndrome. And I trust you know why WTC7 could not get a reprieve? It was even more imperative now for the perps to “eliminate” WTC7, because its lobby, basement and possibly some of the floors where fires were, now contained the proof of one or more fizzled nukes— the nuclear reacting criticality fragments that link back to the U.S. regime, and not 19 Arabs and “plane hits.”

Perhaps all redundant nukes in the towers that finally, successfully exploded were of a different type than the fizzled ones. Redundant nukes that were successfully exploded in the towers’ upper floors, after any initial “fizzled” nukes went off at those levels, would have widely dispersed the fizzled nukes’ contents which had presumably undergone partial criticality (nuclear reacting fragments). Of course, even properly functioning nukes will give off some radioactivity, but Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did not have surface hotspots, for weeks and months. Now, at the WTC, these fragments gave rise to the widespread hotspots all over the WTC, after the “collapses” were over. These areas thus had to be massively, repeatedly washed down, and treated with dirt, that was then removed and carted away (as was the neutron-bombarded metal itself)— this took weeks. Thus we had the high temperatures, melted firemen’s’ boots, etc. from surface hotspots. Fizzled nukes, in the sub-basement levels of the three skyscrapers were entrapped therein, and thus were effectively more concentrated, and nearly impossible to “treat” with dirt or water, and not reachable for months. These deep underground hotspots stayed hot for six months or so (as documented at this blog), giving rise, all the while, to such phenomena as molten steel for six months.

To sum up, it appears that this author has herein revealed a consistent scenario that includes the cause of the resultant, and now massively documented, China Syndrome of high temperatures, molten steel, and nuclear irradiation of responders, and NYC residents, and the long WTC7 demolition delay— namely defective, likely sabotaged, nukes and the time interval needed for replacement (WTC7). Possible mechanisms for the hidden nuclear bomb sabotage have also been revealed here. I assert this is now the most consistent, and perhaps the simplest, scenario that includes the most heretofore inexplicable factors— long WTC7 destruction delay, errant WTC7 destruction time given to the media, the WTC7 “preliminary” explosions, and the resultant China Syndrome, with the greatest and longest time-line for very high temperatures and molten metal underneath the three skyscrapers of the WTC, all of which had one or more “fizzled” nukes! This article may have eliminated the last mysteries of the nuking of the WTC on 9/11 by the Federal American regime. It is up to each of you now to promulgate this! The life you save may be your own!

Things you can do from here:

Professor Steven Jones : 9/11 Symposium 11/03/07

S. Jones, unfortunately, is clueless about the real questions about what actually hit the towers, and the idea that the stand-down argument (which is LIHOP, limited hangout), is, according to this blogger, a huge distraction from the truth of what really happened.

The following info and link are for those who may want to see more from James Vasquenza:

James Vasquenza, World Trade Center survivorConnecticut resident James Vasquenza, who was on the 24th Floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, interviewed soon after the disaster.

Footage Courtesy of NBC-30.
Watch Video Watch Video

James Vasquenza, World Trade Center survivorConnecticut resident James Vasquenza on his thoughts several years after the World Trade Center attacks — on the next attack, and the need to use government programs to help educate both adults and children to be alert to terrorist activity.

Watch Video Watch Video
Tags: , , , , , ,

9/11 Truth, the Dustification of the WTC…..JREF Posts Another Specious Proof

Joules, Schmoules!

The issue has never been a simple matter of kinetic energy; it’s the simple matter of energy plus the mechanism for crushing. “Newton’s Bit” [typo corrected 11/4] (who does not reveal his identity) explains it all, rightly eschewing the pancake collapse (which has been rejected even by official myth-makers), and says it was the impact with the ground which crushed all that concrete.

This is lunacy! Pat Curley…. no wonder you couldn’t hack college physics.

For the Physics Guys

Newton’s Bit does a terrific job of analyzing the kinetic energy released by the Twin Towers and reveals that there is sufficient energy for the pulverization, unlike the claims of Gordon Ross:
blog it

Judge Who Helps Cover Up 9/11 Truth to be Nominated for AG

Update 9/19

Michael Mukasey

This Judge supports the “Patriot Act” and also did not force the government to try Padilla in a court of law. This is a terrible appointment.
Raising money for *settlements* is disturbing. It is one thing to be pro-Israel, it is another thing to tolerate the settlements, but to PROMOTE settlements by raising money. That is too right wing for even many Israelis.
blog it

Update 9/18

The New AG Appointment and the WTC

In introducing his new pick for Attorney General, Judge Michael Mukasey, President Bush put great emphasis on Mukasey’s performance during a crucial criminal case: the trial of the “blind sheikh” found responsible for the bombing of a New York landmark in 1993. The target, of course, was the World Trade Center, and prominent mention of that case brings up a nagging question: why was that attack on the WTC treated, successfully (to hear President Bush tell it), as a criminal matter, while the 2001 attack was treated as a casus belli–not one war, but two? A British author published an opinion column over the weekend that raised the question anew, but it’s a question that has been pushed to the margins of our political discourse: to question the very necessity for a “war on terror” at this point in time is now regarded as kooky.

blog it


Bush Nominates 9-11 Zionist Judge as Attorney General

It is widely reported that President George W. Bush will nominate former Manhattan federal Judge Michael [Bernard] Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general.

blog it

Harry Reids Sucks:

clipped from thehill.com
Reid: ‘I’m glad Bush listened to Congress’

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave a tentative thumbs-up to President Bush’s pick of federal judge Michael Mukasey for attorney general.

“I’m glad President Bush listened to Congress and put aside his plan to replace Alberto Gonzales with another partisan administration insider,” Reid said in response to the nomination.

The White House on Monday touted Mukasey’s “fresh perspective” and “non-political background.”

blog it

Picking Mukasey as AG should help the GOP and Rudy and should scare civil libertarians.

The selection of terror-case judge Michael Mukasey, a pal of Rudy Giuliani‘s, as the next AG broadly hints at the GOP’s strategy for next year’s elections: Terror 24-7.

Mukasey’s close ties to Rudy make him a simply fabulous choice as attorney general. He’s practically a running mate for Giuliani during the next year of campaigning.

What about Mukasey and the rest of us? For the next year as lame-duck AG, Mukasey, who presided over the trial of the World Trade Center’s 1993 bombers, will be a constant and sympathetic/heroic reminder of the “war on terror.” Maybe that will stoke enough fear in us that we’ll forget the war of terror we’ve created in Iraq.

blog it

Ex-Judge Is Said to Be Pick At Justice

Democrats Likely To Accept Him as Attorney General

blog it

9/16/07 8:58 pm

Huffington Post adds little:

WASHINGTON — President Bush has settled on Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and will announce his selection Monday, a person familiar with the president’s decision said Sunday evening.

Mukasey, who has handled terrorist cases in the U.S. legal system for more than a decade, would become the nation’s top law enforcement officer if confirmed by the Senate. Mukasey has the support of some key Democrats, and it appeared Bush was trying to avoid a bruising confirmation battle.

blog it

This shows why Glenn Greenwald is sometimes not much help.


09.16.07 — 8:35PM

By Josh Marshall

If the Bush(Cheney) White House is willing to put Judge Michael Mukasey between them and a clutch of felony indictments I come into the discussion more than a little skeptical of the guy. But Glenn Greenwald notes that as Chief Judge for the Southern District of New York, the very conservative Mukasey repeatedly sided with the rule of law over the Bush White House in the Padilla case. Worth a read.

blog it

clipped from today.reuters.com

A Democratic Party aide said Mukasey may have an easier time winning Senate confirmation than some others who had been mentioned, including Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who led the drive to force Gonzales out, mentioned Mukasey in March as a possible and acceptable replacement for the attorney general, describing him as among those “conservative Republicans” who “put the rule of law first” and was above partisan politics.

clipped from today.reuters.com

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “I know the name (Mukasey), but I don’t know anything about him.”

However, if Mukasey can convince him that as attorney general he would be the nation’s lawyer, not the president’s, “I could support him,” Biden said on “Fox News Sunday.”

blog it

clipped from www.truthout.org

Mr. Mukasey would bring a familiarity with legal issues surrounding terrorism. In 1993, he presided over the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, whom he sentenced to life in prison for his role in a plot to blow up New York landmarks and tunnels. In 2003, as chief judge, he ruled that Jose Padilla was an enemy combatant but entitled to access to his lawyers.

blog it

clipped from bodypolitik.org

Moreover, “both Mukasey and his son, Marc, are connected with Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign, as members of the Republican candidate’s justice advisory committee.” A Republican source tells the Post, “conservatives might have some serious concerns with Mukasey.”

UPDATE I: In 2005 the Alliance for Justice named Mukasey one of four Judges who, “if chosen for the Supreme Court, would show the president’s commitment to nominating people who could be supported by both Democrats and Republicans.”

UPDATE II: Mukasey recently penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he argued that “terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.”

blog it

President Bush has settled on retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, two sources familiar with the decision said Sunday.

blog it

clipped from weeklystandard.com

Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General…

The most contentious fights over the next year are likely to be on war-on-terror issues. And as Andrew McCarthy (no liberal softy on such matters!) explained on National Review Online, Mukasey is first-rate on these: “He deftly handled the enemy-combatant detention of Jose Padilla (recently convicted of terrorism crimes), forcefully endorsing the executive branch’s wartime power to protect the United States from an al Qaeda operative dispatched to our homeland to conduct mass-murder attacks, but vindicating the American citizen’s constitutional rights to counsel and to challenge his detention without trial through habeas corpus.” Judging also by what Mukasey has written and said outside the courtroom about the Patriot Act and related matters, we can be confident he’ll be effective at making the case before Congress and the public for tough legislation and sound policies on national security issues.

blog it

Ex-N.Y. judge to be tapped as AG? – Politics – MSNBC.com: “Mukasey”

Blogger Thoughts: It makes perfect sense…..

clipped from www.law.com

A dispute over whether as much as $525 million in insurance proceeds has been jeopardized by an agreement reordering ownership rights at the reconstructed World Trade Center site must be decided in state court, a federal judge ruled last week.

In Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Allianz Insurance Co., , Southern District Judge Michael B. Mukasey rebuffed a bid by seven insurance companies to remove to federal court a state lawsuit brought by the Port Authority and developer Larry A. Silverstein seeking a ruling that the new ownership arrangement does not affect the insurers’ payment obligations.

The dispute stems from the decision of the Port Authority to take back from Silverstein ownership of the $2 billion Freedom Tower, which will be the centerpiece of the new trade center.

blog it