Sheila Casey

A musical romp through the world of torture and terror: double feature at the Bethesda Row Cinema, Thursday Sept. 10, 7 pm

The deep state does not respond to FOIA requests

Published in the September, 2009, Rock Creek Free Press

In an attempt to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, citizen investigator Aidan Monaghan has filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies such as the FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.  Agency after agency has refused to comply with his requests, instead claiming that the information cannot be found, does not exist, was never properly filed, or even, from the FAA, that it was simply “not in a position to release said records at this time.”

The Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966.  It mandates that information held by federal agencies must be made available to any citizen requesting it, unless that information is exempt.  The Act specifies nine reasons why any given piece of information could be exempt, such as invasion of personal privacy, trade secrets, anything related to the supervision or regulation of financial institutions, and anything that could compromise either law enforcement or national security.  In addition, the FBI has put an exemption on all of their 9/11 information and will release information only if compelled to do so by a lawsuit, of which Monaghan has filed two.

Despite the persistent stonewalling, Monaghan has turned up some interesting discrepancies.   While it was widely reported in the media, such as by USA Today, that the flight data recorder (FDR)  also known as the “black box,” for American Airlines flight 77 (the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11) was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier.  In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.

Chemistry professor from the University of Copenhagen: we've found nano-explosives in the dust from the twin towers

Researchers release 9/11 Pentagon Attack report

published in the July 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Download July 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

Among 9/11 truth activists, there is little disagreement about what happened at the World Trade Center and at Shanksville. Although it’s not possible to know all the details of what transpired until there is an independent, impartial investigation, there is wide agreement among 9/11 researchers that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, and that the hole in the ground that was presented to us as the crash site of flight 93 in Shanksville does not contain the remnants of an airplane.

But when it comes to the Pentagon, the truth community has yet to reach a consensus, and 9/11 forums are filled with bitter arguments from proponents of one view or another.  It is assumed by most savvy 9/11 activists that the truth movement has been infiltrated by intelligence agents tasked with crippling the movement in any way possible, and that many of the most strident arguments come, not from sincere researchers, but from disinformation agents intent on spreading confusion and discord.  These agents are in a position to know the truth about what happened, and can be expected to mount vigorous arguments against that truth, the better to keep the movement divided and to prevent a clear, cogent message about what happened at the Pentagon from reaching the masses. 

To many activists, the Pentagon attack stands as the single most incriminating feature of 9/11.  The official conspiracy theory (OCT) would have us believe that the world’s only superpower, with the most massive military that has ever existed, was unable to defend its own headquarters 51 minutes after the north WTC tower had been hit, 34 minutes after the south WTC tower had been hit, and 41 minutes after the FAA knew that there was an emergency aboard flight 77 (the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon).  Regarding flight 77, Wikipedia states: 

By 08:56, the flight was turned around, and the transponder had been disabled. The FAA was aware at this point that there was an emergency aboard the plane. By this time, American Airlines Flight 11 had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 175 was known to have been hijacked and within minutes of also striking the World Trade center.

Where was America’s air defense during the 41 minutes after it was known that flight 77 was hijacked and before the Pentagon was attacked?  In highly incriminating testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta stated that while he was in the bunker with Dick Cheney:

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

A few minutes later, the Pentagon exploded in flames, killing 125 unsuspecting workers in the building.  No evacuation order had been given.

Norman Mineta’s testimony was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.  Download 911 Commission Report

Given these facts, plus many other anomalies about the OCT, it is no surprise that millions of people have concluded that the government is lying about what happened at the Pentagon.  With the scene of attack completely controlled by the primary suspect, and with all video of the attack confiscated from nearby businesses by the FBI within minutes of the attack, for years 9/11 researchers wondered about what had actually transpired at the Pentagon, with little hard evidence to guide them.

Frustrated with idle speculation, two men from Southern California, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, joined forces to form Citizen Investigation Team (CIT).  They traveled to the Pentagon and sought out eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon.  They interviewed their eyewitnesses, on camera, at the location where they had been standing on the morning of 9/11 when they saw the plane, and had all but a couple of the witnesses draw the plane’s flight path on a map and sign it. 

A pattern began to emerge, and the more witnesses CIT interviewed, the clearer the pattern became:  the plane had not taken the path claimed by the government, and the path that it did take proves that the plane did not hit the building.

CIT interviewed three Pentagon police officers, two of whom witnessed the flight path from the Citgo gas station (Officer William Lagasse, Officer Chadwick Brooks and Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr.); five Arlington Cemetery workers (Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton Sr. and George Aman); auto mechanic Edward Paik; Citgo gas station attendant Robert Turcios; air traffic controller Sean Boger (who was at the Pentagon Heliport at the time of the attack); Terry Morin, a project manager for Sparta (saw the plane from the Navy Annex); courier Levi Stephens (saw the plane from the Pentagon’s south parking lot); and Maria de La Cerda, a career musician with the Army band, who saw the plane from Arlington Cemetery.

Every one of these people clearly recalls seeing the plane take a path that disagrees with the government’s story.  Most of them saw the plane fly north of the Citgo station prior to the fireball at the Pentagon.  One witness, Roosevelt Roberts Jr., saw the plane after the explosion, banking low over the parking lot.  None of them report seeing the plane fly south of the Citgo station, where it would have had to have been to have caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Although there are other witnesses who claim the plane took the south path, they can be dismissed if they also claim absurd things, such as that the plane cartwheeled into the building, or if they were not in a position to see the things they claim to have seen. 

There is a zone of destruction heading towards the Pentagon, and into the building, that corresponds with a south side flight path.  Five light poles were destroyed, and the damage in the building lines up perfectly with those five light poles. 

Under most circumstances, physical evidence would trump eyewitness testimony.  But in this case, the crime scene was controlled by the primary suspect, tainting the credibility of the physical evidence.  In addition, there are many anomalies with the physical evidence. 

Right from the beginning, questions arose.  Where was the plane debris?  Photos taken immediately after the attack show no wings, tail or fuselage.  No luggage or bodies.  The damage to the building is inconsistent with the crash of an airliner with a 44 foot tall vertical stabilizer and 125 foot wingspan.

Even the downed light poles are suspicious.  Compared to a light pole that was knocked down by wind, and has a jagged edge where it broke at the base, the light poles downed on 9/11 appear to have been cut, neatly and cleanly.

This photo (below) clearly shows a long scratch mark on the asphalt where the 247 pound light pole -- that supposedly had been taken out of Lloyd England's windshield -- was dragged into position in front of his taxicab.

On top of this odd physical evidence, we now have 14 eyewitnesses who have stated that the plane was not where it would have needed to be to down the light poles and hit the Pentagon.

CIT is not the only group concluding that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon.  Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group of 200 aviation professionals who all agree that, according to the data released by the government, the government story is not correct. 

In August 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the Flight Data Recorder data for flight 77.  According to Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the last recorded altitude for the plane (one second before the alleged impact) shows an altitude of 480 feet above sea level.  The top of the Pentagon is 112 feet above sea level.  Given this data, the plane cleared the building with 368 feet to spare. The NTSB has refused to comment on this.  

For the contingent within the 9/11 truth movement that is convinced that a plane did hit the Pentagon, the most convincing evidence comes from the dozens of witnesses who believe they saw the plane hit the building.  Six of these witnesses are editors or reporters for USA Today, and all claim to have been on the same quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27, heading the same way at the moment of the attack, late to work at the USA Today building in Rosslyn, three miles away. 

In a ten minute video called “The USA Today Parade,” CIT has demonstrated that the Pentagon is not visible for most of that quarter mile stretch of Rt. 27.  With video taken in a car driving that same route, it is clear that the Pentagon only becomes visible at the point at which the plane would have been over or behind the car. For much of the route, the Pentagon is obscured by large, bushy trees.  CIT interviewed alleged witness to the Pentagon impact and USA Today editor Joel Sucherman on camera in his office.  Sucherman insists that he saw the Pentagon at a location which CIT’s video clearly shows does not have a view of the Pentagon. 

USA Today is owned by the Gannett company, which also owns Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times and Navy Times.

In the 9/11 truth movement, CIT’s work has been controversial.  They are banned from posting on the largest 9/11 truth forum, 911blogger.  Recent threads demonstrate that 911blogger has a pronounced preference for the “yes, a plane hit the Pentagon” version of events, with frequent anonymous contributors vehemently defending that point of view. 

The primary criticism of CIT’s work is that all of their witnesses believe the plane impacted the building.  As I reported in my story about CIT in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press:

All of CIT’s witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible.  This fact has been used to dismiss CIT’s work as irrelevant, but it’s not a compelling argument.

Less than an hour earlier, America had been treated to the sight of the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball.  Most people were aware that an attack was underway.  If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball.  To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives pre-planted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre 9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.

For those who actually saw the plane fly over the building, there was a convenient cover story:  the second plane that came along three mintues after the first and flew over the building.  Anyone who saw the truth of what happened would conclude that they were seeing the second plane. 

The attack at the Pentagon is best understood as a gigantic magic show.  How many of us have ever seen a fireball hundreds of feet in diameter?  I am sure that if I were to see one, my eyes would be riveted on it and for at least a few moments I’d be completely unaware of anything else in my environment.  This is the essence of the magician’s trade – with flourishes and fanfare, he makes you look where he wants you to look, so you never see him slip the card behind his ear or up his sleeve.  With the news media batting clean-up, only witnesses who confirmed the OCT were given airtime, and any doubters who were interviewed were simply edited out of the evening newscast. 

In an effort to hold media and government officials responsible for their evidence, CIT has created a new film, National Security Alert.  This 80 minute video compresses all of the CIT interviews into a concise and serious presentation (sans music) that summarizes their evidence clearly and soberly.  Their site will also contain a section where citizens can record which officials have received a copy of the video, and their response (or lack thereof).

CIT will be showing excerpts of National Security Alert and addressing the implications of their findings at a free conference in Arlington, VA called Deconstructing the Pentagon Attack. The conference will also feature Shelton Lankford, Lt. Col. USMC (retired), a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions, 10,000 hours of flight time, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross. As of publication, attendance by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is unconfirmed.

Held at the NRECA Conference Center at 4301 Wilson Blvd, in Arlington, the event will run from 10 am to 2:30 pm on Saturday, July 11, and is sponsored by The Wisdom Fund. Both the conference and parking are free.

9/11 Truth Mobile rides again in Takoma Park, Md on July 4th

Before the parade began, Sue and I walked to the parade termination 
point, and headed up the parade route (working backwards, towards the 
oncoming parade) to hand out our brochures and talk to people 
about our upcoming events with CIT and Richard Gage.  I probably 
handed out 100 brochures myself, Sue I'm sure a similar number.

Download 9-11 facts brochure

View this photo

  Almost everyone took the brochures, but there were a few who refused.  
One gray haired woman squatting on the curb refused quite adamantly 
and angrily, saying "I know what you people think and I don't want to 
hear it!"

I lost track of Sue at some point, but made it probably halfway along 
the parade route before encountering the Truth Mobile coming the other 
way, so climbed on board for a cold drink and a rest.

What do you know, as we toodled along in the Truth Mobile, going by 
all the same people I had just passed walking, that when we passed 
that gray haired woman on the curb, she doesn't even look up as we go 
by, cause eyes wide open and mouth slightly agape, she's completely 
engrossed in reading our brochure!

Download 9-11 facts brochure

 

Goldman Sachs: "great vampire squid... jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money"

There is no warm cranny in my heart for Matt Taibbi.  He penned one of the most viciously irrational hit jobs on the 9/11 truth movement ever.  But he has now written something of value:  a hit job on an operation that deserves it, Goldman Sachs.  Taibbi's article begins:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

Taibbi acknowledges that there's nothing the ordinary  (or even extraordinary) citizen can do about Goldman's massive rip-off of investors, homeowners, taxpayers and gasoline buyers.  Still, there is some satisfaction in knowing exactly how one is being screwed.  You're still being tortured, but the hood is off and you can watch while they disembowel you. 

The rest of this Rolling Stone article is here.

Did a plane really hit the Pentagon? These researchers say no, and their evidence is compelling.

For those who can't make the free presentation in Arlington on July 11, Citizen Investigation Team's evidence can be viewed here.

Transcript of Richard Gage explaining controlled demolition on KMPH in Fresno

Is the dam beginning to break? 

In this seven minute interview, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, is given plenty of time to explain the overwhelming evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were not brought down by the impact of the planes and ordinary office fires.  Unlike the derision and condescension that typically greets 9/11 truth activists at mainstream outlets, these two anchors seem genuinely curious and open to the uncomfortable facts proving that explosives were detonated inside the Twin Towers. 

Transcript of Gage's entire interview on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, California is below:

Kim Stephens:  He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is touring the country with a controversial message about September 11. 

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Richard Gage is here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  Thank you so much for joining us.

Gage:  You’re very welcome, it’s great to be here.

Kopi Sotiropulos:  Well first of all give us a little bit more about your background.

Gage:  I’m an architect of twenty years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and have been studying steel frame fire proof buildings for about that long. 

Kim Stephens: We ask that for clarification because as we get into this we want people to make sure that you’re not just somebody with a wacky idea, you come with some science to you.  What is the official reason for the collapse of the World Trade Center towers?

Gage:  Well we’re told that the planes hit the buildings, and there was an explosion and a fire, and about a hour and a half later, in the case of the north tower, the buildings collapsed due to structural weakening, due to the fires.  The problem is that we don’t have large gradual deformations associated with collapses.  And fires in high rises have never brought down a steel frame high rise building at all, ever.  And what we have, unfortunately, is the evidence in the twin towers and the third skyscraper to collapse that day, which most people don’t know anything about it.  We have the evidence of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  In the case of building seven, it collapses straight down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  It’s dropping, as you can see symmetrically, smoothly, at free fall speed, in the first hundred feet.  Two and a half seconds.  This is uncanny, there’s forty thousand tons of structural steel designed to resist this collapse. 

Video evidence that Lloyde England is lying to support the official story about the Pentagon attack on 9/11

For several years now, citizen investigators Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis have been laboring to alert the world to the truth about what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01.  My detailed article about their research is here. 

I reported last month that Ranke and Marquis (who call themselves Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT) were consolidating their hours of video evidence into a more concise format that edits all the lengthy interviews into a single 60 minute video called “National Security Alert.”

I spoke to Craig Ranke today; he told me that the new video is nearly complete.  As a bit of an appetizer, he has released a nine minute excerpt that focuses on the role of Lloyde England.  The new video has been posted at Rense as well as 911blogger and has already garnered 16,000 views on YouTube.

 

Here's some background from my previous post for those who need to be convinced that this video is worth their time to watch:

The most riveting segment in the CIT footage is of the interview with Lloyde England, a taxi cab driver who was photographed numerous times just after the attack.  In all the photos, England and his cab are on Route 27, on the bridge going over Columbia Pike.  The front windshield of his cab has a big hole in it and the cab is at a stop and straddling the lanes.  A broken light pole lies nearby. 

England’s story is that he was going 40 mph when he felt the jet go over head, and then the light pole came smashing through his front windshield.  He says he then skidded sideways to a stop, and that a stranger stopped and helped him remove the light pole from the windshield, and then left without ever giving his name, or even speaking a word.

England’s story is suspect because photos show the hood of his sedan untouched and gleaming like a mirror, although his front windshield was destroyed.  England is quite clear that it was not the smaller section at the top of the light pole that impaled his windshield, but the big, 40 foot, 247 pound pole.  He contends that after it pierced his windshield, with perhaps five feet of the top end of the pole inside the cab, that the other 35 feet stuck straight out into the air, not touching the hood of the cab. 

The question is, with the windshield destroyed, what held the pole up the in air?  CIT drove with England to his property in the country to inspect the cab.  They hypothesized that perhaps the narrow end of the pole had pierced the back seat or floorboards of the cab, holding it in place and not allowing it to touch the hood of the cab.  But their inspection showed that there was only an insignificant rip in the rear seat, and no damage to the floorboards.  Although the dashboard was damaged, no part of the hood, including the edge near the windshield, showed any damage.

What makes the story even more incredible is that England claims that as he was removing the pole from the windshield, he fell down, but managed, even as he was on the ground, to keep holding the pole in the air.  Remember that the pole is 40 feet long and weighs 247 pounds, while England appears to be about 65 years old. 

Pressed to explain how it can be that the pole never touched the hood of the sedan, England said only “The car speaks for itself.”  Unfortunately for England, the car seems to be saying that his account can not possibly be true.

In addition, with 13 witnesses saying that the plane went no where near those light poles, it seems clear that something else caused the damage to England’s windshield. 

The video with England validates CIT’s practice of keeping the camera rolling as much as possible, even during casual conversation, as the most damning statements from both England and his wife came out spontaneously and unexpectedly.  While Ranke and England’s wife were chatting at the Englands’ home, Ranke told her that they had determined that the jet never hit the Pentagon, but kept on going, and, amazingly, she agreed!  The audio is hard to hear and she then refused to say more, but her meaning was clear.  Mrs. England, who works for the FBI, also said that she knows why her husband’s car was not impounded as evidence, but wasn’t going to tell.

England spontaneously offered this damning statement:  “You gotta understand something.  When people do things and get away with it, you…eventually it’s gonna come to me, and when it comes to me, it’s gonna be so big, I can’t do nothing about it.”

CIT also kept the camera running during the 90 minute drive to see England’s car, and captured a few very interesting statements on tape.  Although England speaks generally and indirectly, in the context of a conversation about the attack at the Pentagon, his meaning is clear.  

England:  I wasn’t supposed to be involved with this, this is too big for me, man, this is a big thing.  This is a world thing happening, I’m a small man…I’m not supposed to be involved in this.  This is for other people, people who have money and all this kind of stuff. 

Ranke:  Your point that these people who have all the money… 

England:  This is their thing.

Ranke:  This is their event.

England:  This is for them.

Ranke:  Meaning they’re doing it for their own reasons…

England:  (with conviction)  That’s right.  I’m not supposed to be in it. 

-----------------------------

Ranke:  They must have planned it.

England:  It was planned.

-----------------------

England:  You know what history is?  It’s not the truth.  It’s “his story.”  Has nothing to do with the truth.

As someone who has been researching the 9/11 story for two years, and has experienced mockery, abuse and denials from the government and media, it was a thrill to hear someone who was directly involved in the cover-up to admit on tape that it was a big event, a world event, planned by rich people for their own reasons. 

Incredibly, once Ranke explained that 13 witnesses had all placed the jet at the north side of the Citgo station, on a trajectory that could not have knocked down the five light poles, England changed his story and declared that he was not where all the photographs show him to be, but actually well north of Columbia Pike – where no light poles were knocked down. 

Ranke showed England numerous photos of himself, his damaged cab and the downed light pole on the bridge over Columbia Pike.  Even faced with incontrovertible evidence of his exact location, England resolutely maintained that pictures don’t always tell the truth and that the accident with the light pole had taken place much further north.

After watching the 90 minute video of the interview with Lloyde England, the man is completely discredited.  Ranke points out that England may well be a victim himself, in that he may have been forced to tell the story of the pole impaling his windshield.  But his story is so incredible, and his protestations that he was not in the location where multiple photos and videos place him to be on that day are so absurd, that Lloyde England’s account now stands as perhaps the most vulnerable point in the edifice of lies that constitute the official story of the attack on the Pentagon.

Highly engineered explosives found in WTC rubble

This incredible discovery has been published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  Lead author Niels H. Harrit was interviewed for ten minutes on Danish television, and gave a concise and compelling explanation about the importance of this finding.  Watch him here:

As reported by Raw Story:

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

Dr. Stephen Jones explains what "peer reviewed" means here:

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team months of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including three papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a long paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with many color images and graphs. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University or by the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did not mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): unless an objector actually publishes his or her objection in a peer-reviewed established journal, (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), then the objection is not considered serious in the scientific community.  You should not worry about non-published objections either. 

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection published in an established peer-reviewd journal?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands."