I only wish that Gary would share more links to corroborate the many quotes and figures he references. I see plenty of quotes but no links to their sources in his comments above.

Has anyone ever told Doc Kohls that it's poor form to quote yourself?

Also, where are these celebrity doctors pushing vaccines?

Relating belief in Big Pharma to Big Religion is creative and effective.
Some of my own family have traded in their zealous faith in religion for zealous faith in the alleged 'science of vaccines'.

Believing the CDC website? That's like believing the old advertisements from Big Tobacco about the benefits of cigarettes! Did you miss the news about Bill Thompson, CDC whistleblower, regarding MMR/Autism study? Consumers demanded to know if there was a link. There certainly is! The CDC ordered those parts of the study to be shredded!

Thank you

Thank you sir.
This is the political environment of our school district, and it is one reason I have not sought any labor endorsements. Educating the children of our district shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and it should be about helping our staff deliver the best education possible.
Politics and clear conflicts of interest like this just further more divisiveness and help to sow more distrust.

Search the web for acetaminophen, autism, vaccines. The acetaminophen hypothesis says the administration of the drug for children's post-vaccination soreness is common. The proposed mechanism is acetaminophen interfering with a child's ability to neutralize the potentially harmful vaccine ingredients that adults and children who don't take acetaminophen have no trouble with. A predisposition among an identified subset of children is posited. The timeline is right, in any case. Tylenol got it's big break when it was discovered that aspirin could rarely cause a rare syndrome in children. In rolled Tylenol, up went autism.

Unattributed quotes are intellectual rubbish. As Thomas Jefferson once famously said, “Never trust quotes you find on the internet.” ........

Finally, a article with real facts regarding vaccinations. I've waited a long time to see an article spelling out how the risks of vaccinations against these diseases far outweigh the risks of the disease itself. Kudos to the Duluth Reader for printing this.

Thank you so much! This was informative and helpful!!

I thought I was old enough not to be surprised when someone whose opinion I respected wrote this 9-11 article. A woman known to our family died on the second plane to hit the tower. Where does Dr Kohls suggest we look for her if the planes were unmanned drones. A total of 4 planes, crew and passengers gone. 260 people. Where are they? It would seem he only picked sketchy "facts" to support his cover-up theory.

John, you have captured this so well.
This can be very complex if you want to make it that way but you have captured a lot of the substance of what is known and public, simply and clearly. For us that have been so involved trying to show the City Administration a truly strong vision of rail AND trail it has been perplexing. At the very time they are trying to bring tourism to the western side of Duluth its so confusing why they would put the track assets they have now in jeopardy. The train needs to get to a destination just like a trail. Without getting to Boy Scout Landing who knows how long an train could last, the City just doesn't get, or do they?? The question for us involved has always been WHY are they so hell bent on a trail at the possible expense of losing a valuable asset that other communities would love to have, the tracks and a truly scenic train that folks of all abilities, can enjoy the largest fresh water estuary in the country if not the world. We all want the trail but not at the expense of the rail. Both are possible. WHY? Some say it costs money to ride the train. Well is the Zoo free, is Glensheen free, is all programing at Heartley Park free. These are all great assets that need fees to continue their service to the area just like the train.
Enough for now...can't wait for next week's piece.

Destroying the causeway is dumb and reckless. The environment risk outweighs any advantage. And let's face it -- the only advantage is that it gives the city a way to screw those volunteers that the volunteers cannot counter.

I struggle to understand how the city thinks converting Slag Point -- literally built from steel plant slag -- into a park is environmentally sound, but has said the causeway is an environmental affront. Unless they are liars.

The Mud Lake shoreline is full of Slag and is not the natural shoreline. When I was the first elected president of the LS&M (by the way we incorporated as a non-profit very early to protect the museum) in the 80's Priolla and Johnson were still dozing slag and other debris into the embankment surrounding Mud Lake. That causeway still has the trestle under it. It was just filled by dumping gravel over the old trestle.

Removing the causeway will kill the LS&M - that mile is what makes the trip the most scenic in the Midwest. It will be very sad to loose that line and like the Incline - once it is gone - you will regret it.

The Honorable Mayor is not offering a compromise - I hope she will reconsider. A compromise would widen the causeway enough to support a trail alongside the tracks - that is what the original Western Waterfront trail plan (they should look for it in the City Hall) had envisioned back in the early 80's.

Mark,
The current trail plan goes around Mud Lake where a trail should go and all other plans if shown show it. Better vistas and more like a trail. The City admin had been using the 1979 plan but only mentioning it as a plan that requested access to the river, so we showed folks the plan. When you see that plan you will understand why the City didn't show it. On every page and every sketch it shows trail AND train as well as other great visionary ideas. The City has the plan and now via our group many more do as well.

If Federal money is used on what has been explained as now being one big project. The LS&M if not on the list of National List of Historic Sights and Structures is clearly eligible for listing and thus a separate study would need to be completed that would first look to avoid any impact to the LS&M and if that is determined not feasible them mitigation measures would need to be drafted and concured upon. The entire process and regulations applicable are available from the State Historic Preservation Office, or from the National Register of Historic Sites and Structures. I cannot remember which Code of Federal Regulatins the Historic preservation are documented but it is definitely in Section 800. Now your even in better shape if any Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, funds are used because you would then gain protection under the 4(f) provisions of the Federal Aid Highway program as provided in 23 CFR Section 600 I believe if memory serves me right. If you really know the insurance and outs of the two possible Federal Environmental regulations that would be written up under the larger National Environmental Protection Act, NEPA, you should be able to save your railroad and even potentially halt the upcoming use of the rail line due to the construction impacts upon the operating rail line.

I've been retired due to disability for about 3 1/2 years now from the FHWA. However when I worked for the FHWA I used to be the Environmental Engineer in the Ohio Division office and I reviewed and approved environmental document for the FHWA throughout my 28 year career in compliance with the NEPA. If you don't know the insurance and outs of the regulations you can be rolled right over, however if you kmow how to speak the language of the National Historic Preservation Act your leverage to keep the LS&M operational will go up significantly. Noncompliance with NEPA and the underlying Historic provisions can stop any project Immediately.

MBA, Reynoldsburg, OH

The following is a very long comment which refers to several of the “indisputable,” claims made by 911 conspiracy theorists, Gary Kohls, who presented them as absolute proof of a conspiracy in his article in the September 7th issue of the Duluth Reader. Let me see if I can debunk them?
“On the morning of 9/11/01, 19 Arab Muslims outwitted the most sophisticated military defense system in the world – FOUR TIMES.”

Some of the claims made about the attacks included disbelief that a military might like America could be successfully attacked by a few Hi Jackers. However, by the time the military became aware of what was happening and scrambled jets to intercept the hijackers, they had turned off the radio signals in their planes, making them hard to spot out of hundreds of planes on our radar that morning. Pilots couldn’t just jump in their planes and 2 minute later shoot down the highjacked jets, or persuade the attackers to stop. As much as we’d like to believe it couldn’t happen it did—on the morning of 9/11 in 2001! The hijackers were also able to smuggle on small weapons that were undetected (like Box cutters and small knives) and they had also been trained hand to hand fighting. And just as General Custer never anticipated what would happened next. Our means of detecting suspicious passengers was much less effective and by comparison way too lax.

About steel columns and the Tower’s collapses;
“The laws of physics were suspended in New York City, with three high-rises, massively steel-reinforced skyscrapers all collapsing at free-fall speed directly into their footprints.”
“In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building, but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.”
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.”
The World Trade Center towers, each of which were designed to easily tolerate such impacts were allegedly brought down by two airlines. (the following paragraphs are from the Debunking 911 myths website).
“The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.”
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually.

From this website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

“To many who witnessed the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center last September, it might appear obvious why the Twin Towers fell: They were struck at blinding speed by two massive aircraft carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel, whose ignition generated a fire so searing that it weakened steel beams to the point of collapse. Standard skyscrapers of the day had support columns that were spaced evenly throughout the width of the building. Robertson decided instead to keep the columns in a main inner core (housing the elevators, emergency stairs, and other building services), and move the rest of the support columns to the exterior walls. This difference allowed the interior to have more open space.”

“Like all the steel in the building, the trusses were protected from fire using a fire-retardant foam. But according to the findings of some of the forensic engineering teams -- which included researchers supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- each plane's impact blew the foam away. The naked steel was weakened by exposure to the intense heat of burning jet fuel. This could have caused the floor trusses to sag and fall.” Likewise, there may have been a similar problem with fire-protection for the emergency stairwells and elevators in the inner core. Those areas were surrounded by drywall -- a kind of Sheetrock that is especially fire resistant. But the drywall was so lightweight that the impact of each plane blew it away, exposing the stairwells and inner core supports to the intense fires. It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

“There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.”

Then there is this bugaboo;
None of the names of the 19 alleged hi-jackers were mentioned in the passenger manifest lists. At least five of the alleged hi-jackers have been found to be alive and well and living in the Mid-East. Some of them have been interviewed by the BBC.
“Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.
“It's a unique situation," said Dr. Jerry Spencer, a former chief medical examiner for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who worked 30 years as a Navy forensic pathologist. "The terrorists are usually not in our possession in the United States like this. The other issue is, will the families want them back?
We don’t actually subscribe to these ideas, but without any official documentation it’s hard to prove a point, one way or the other. Which is why we were very interested to see a photo of what looked like a passenger manifest in the Terry McDermott book, Perfect Soldiers. We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book. 24 hours later we had copies, too. So, what would they tell us?”
“One immediately obvious point is that our lists show the alleged hijackers on each of the four planes. Another indication that the “hijackers weren’t on the manifests” claims are false.
“t’s worth bearing in mind that these aren’t the only reported documents to show alleged hijackers on the planes, though. The Boston Globe published the seat numbers of the suspects on the two planes hijacked locally to them, and provided the complete seating plan for Flight 11. These lists do nothing more than confirm what we already knew.as identified by the hijacker’s families.”
From:
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_dna_profiles.html
“Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”
“The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms. Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.
"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms. Borakove said.
"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.”
About those impossible phone calls;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

My words: (in order to destroy the idea that passengers on the hijacked planes engaged in a brave fight with hijackers, apparently, conspiracy believers found it necessary to destroy the idea that several doomed passengers made cell phone calls alerting loved ones of their situation.) So, this is the theory they circulated;
“In 2001, it was impossible for commercially-available cell phones to transmit messages from planes that were flying higher than 2,000 feet of altitude or at speeds exceeding 230 MPH. (Flight 93 was flying at 30,000 feet and at 500 MPH when calls were allegedly made. The calls were clever hoaxes, particularly the infamous “Let’s Roll” call.”
But, according to an article written by Simon Romero in the Sept. 14th, 2001 issue of the New York Times;

“Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”
“It is still not clear, except perhaps to investigators, whether the various calls placed from the hijacked planes were from cell phones or air phones, the wireless pay phones built into some aircraft seats that are operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE operation of Verizon Communications. (Air phones communicate with ground-based antennas that do not interfere with cellular networks.)
“But at least one of the calls appears to have come from a passenger in a bathroom outside the reach of the air phones, suggesting that a cell phone was used in that case. Wireless carriers declined to say whether the calls were made on their systems, citing privacy concerns and the investigation by the federal authorities.”
To bolster their 911 conspiracy theory Truther tried to circulate the myth that passenger using cell phones could not possibly have used them to contact loved ones. And they conjured up speculations about some amazing electronic device that could not only imitate the voices of loved one who mighty call from the plane, but also immediately match their response to any word or phrase, in English (and possibly other) languages, so that they could give the impression of hearing and responding to whatever was said. In other words, if the loved one said, “Uncle Don heard about it on the news,” then the device would have been able to identify and instantly craft a congruous response? Of course, such a device has never been invented and/or commercially used, and so 911 truthers who use it as a hypothetical explanation lean more on science fiction than anything in the real world. However, this is an absurdly inventive attempt to provide speculative answers, which are way to bizarre for more rational truther to accept! This science fiction concoction is way too bizarre than other arguments made by truthers, and it’s amazing that Gary still clings to it?

“The laws of chemistry were suspended in New York City when dozens of massive steel girders, whose melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit, were simultaneously and explosively melted by burning aviation fuel, whose maximum achievable temperature (even when burned in 100% oxygen) is 1517 degrees F”
However, this question has already been proved irrelevant regarding why the twin towers fell. If one visits a metallurgical website it doesn’t take long to find out that, although Steel does need to be heated to very high temperature in order to melt, in order to seriously destroy the Towers’ stability, all that needs to happen is for the steel to weaken, then bend and snap while trying to cope with 10 stories above the impact area in one tower and about 25 floors above the impact zone in the other. Each floor took up about an acre of horizontal space and weighed thousands of tons. They also contained furniture, like desks chairs, tables, and filing cabinets, plus copious amount of office supplies, like printing paper, ink and uncountable thousands of papers documents, as well as all the chemicals in paint, printers, and all the things with various minerals and chemicals from hundreds of computers in the impact zone, which all contributed to the blaze! Experts have determined that when all this “fuel” burned (more than an hour in one tower and at least half an hour in the other) so, the resulting heat was able to raise temps up to 1000 degrees, F. This was enough to make the Tower’s structural steel become half as strong, until it could no longer hold up the hundreds of thousand tons in the floors above that came down in response to gravity and acceleration. If one really looks at just about any of the videos of the towers falling, one can see that the large portions of steel beams and huge clouds of dust particles being ejected were falling faster than the tower itself, and in actuality, the time it took to fall has been estimated as 40 seconds by some investigators—well above free-fall speeds

About the myth/ rumor that 5 of the Hijackers are alive and living in the middle east, the BBC has updated the article that discussed that story;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
Here is some of what they said in the 2006 update;
“The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy…. We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years, we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.”

Now about the claim that The BBC reported the fall of WTC tower 7 a half hour before it happened—Here’s an article by Mark Rudin, published 9:00 Wednesday 2nd on July 2008 which should put that mistake to rest;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

“It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day. So, is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning, I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.
The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?" It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen." I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?" He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie." And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly.
As Dylan Avery, the maker of “Loose change” said, “Of course not, that’s ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?”—why indeed? Could it be that we will next be expected to believe that all the entire world was in on the alleged plot?
One more thing about Tower 7 (which many new studies have now explained) when observers claimed that it showed very little structural damage, they were not looking at the side of the building closest to the Towers. Building 7 was severely damaged on that side, since the building was half as tall as the Twin Towers, and large pieces of debris such as heavy steel columns had been raining down on it for many hours.
These are merely a few of the arguments which truthers claim are indisputable and which leave no doubts. Yet if one is not so eager to jump on the band wagon of those who want to see a conspiracy, one will find that there are a great number of ways to cast doubt on and/or prove that a conspiracy has never happened. Anyone willing to engage in genuine critical thinking should see for themselves just how the many supposed smoking gun fallacies have been explained. And I am not talking about those few mentioned in this long comment—virtually every suspicious anomaly ever mentioned by truthers, has been disprove or debunked as containing misinformation or as coming from faulty or poorly informed sources—really! Every last one!

Start reading some of the debunking sites, which a vast number of scientists and Engineers have clearly explained before you allow someone else to tell you what is true and what is false!

Nuff Said?
Peter W. Johnson,
Superior, WI.

John captured this almost to a tee. Still plenty of details left out there, devil is in the details, yet this exposes enough to hopefully have the City step back and truly look to its citizens to help form the project and not the administration.

The question for me now is, now what? What will the City do? Keep pushing this unsupported agenda? Will it look for more data to help the decision makers make a well informed decision? Maybe economic and cultural impact data can finally be gathered as well as the heavy sided natural resource inside involvement. Will the City look for balance? Or will they continue down the path of throwing out the baby with bath water?

My son also received the vaccine as it was strongly recommended. He now has POTS and is debilitating him.

I have a copy of that plan. Yes it was originally set up to provide trail along the river side of the tracks - that would help protect the train from the under-cutting action of the river. Don Shank, Frank King and many of the other founders of the museum and who were instrumental in getting the line donated to the City of Duluth helped in the development of that plan. The walking bridge on the riverside of the bridge just West of Clyde Avenue is the only part of the trail that was built.

Beware of those "emboldened citizen advocates.” The god damned public thinks the government works FOR them. The Western Waterfront Trail started out as a mixed use plan decades ago. A little bit of trail was built, and the city moved on to its next shiny object. The railroad volunteers, on the other hand, restored the badly decayed rail bed, cleared brush, and continued maintaining the line -- which serves as a de facto trail. Don't believe for a minute that the city planners aren't looking at the whole rail line. By taking away the part of the ride where riders can see an eagle swoop down and take a fish, or a heron lumber to take flight -- to feel the breeze on their face and see the river open wide. The city has failed to develop this for decades, and there's no evidence they've got a plan to maintain the trail and the parks after they stop picking the steel company's pocket. (Really, doesn't it feel a little sleazy to be demanding they build parks and trails well away from their area of impact?)

The corridor should remain in the hands of the volunteers who restored and maintain it. The city should stick with its strengths, adding more parking meters and expensive decorative manhole covers.