text:
November 08, 2007
What I said
Remember it's spoken word so it reads a little funny:
One of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn, once wrote A good indication of societal decadence is when it prefers to obsess over fictional offences rather than real ones. I add that theres no decadence quite like American decadence.
Conspiracy theories are very tempting. I know something the rest of you dont know. Its a childish impulse that some people carry over into adulthood. It makes people feel special and, in the case of 9/11 conspiracies, safe.
It isnt a complicated network of Islamist terrorists that want to kill you, its George W. Bush. And really, which would you prefer as an enemy? The people who would chop off your head and send it to your mother or the guy who mispronounces nuclear and falls off his Segway?
When I started researching this topic, I came across dozens of conspiracy laden explanations for what happened on 9/11. There were bombs in the buildings, no plane actually hit the Pentagon, it was the Jooooos that done did it, and, the most popular, that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because apparently thats the most effective way to erase documents on a computer.
Most conspiracy theorists subscribe to their favorite theory and generally discount the rest. In fact, Anthony Luppe who wrote the forward to Sanders book laughs at the people who believe in some of the more outlandish theories like that there were no airplanes or that there were missiles on the planes and essentially accuses the people who believe in conspiracy theories other than the ones described in this particular book as possible government plants who want to deliberately spread disinformation so that we dont find out the truth.
Some conspiracy theorists, particularly the ones who profit off of their nuttiness simply adjust their perspective when one of their theories gets discredited. With every new video they produce, they just edit out the old information that they can no longer support. The general public doesnt have the time to sift through the overwhelming amount of detail provided by these people because they have jobs, families, car payments and PTA meetings to attend to. In short, they have lives.
Every one of these theories has holes you can fly a 747 through. But Im not here today to debate these theories, Im here to debate one conspiracy theory only: that the US government had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and purposely didnt stop it.
After reading his book, I find that my opponent basically believes that the Pakistani government was behind 9/11 and that our government let it happen. Let me make this very clear. He doesnt believe that some bureaucrat somewhere got a tip that planes were going to be hijacked and flown into our buildings and the government official just put it at the bottom of a pile of other tips he had gotten that day. No, Sander believes that the government LET 9/11 happen. His reasons are all over the map but essentially our government decided to let this one terrorist attack happen so as not to embarrass our friends the Pakistanis and let our connections to their intelligence agency be found out. Additionally, our government would be able to pursue their imperialistic goals with neverending war but my opponent really doesnt cover this until the very end of his book.
He bases this on the word of one supposed ex-CIA agent who had dinner, in TriBeCa, with a Pakistani man variously described in the book as both an arms dealer and a spy for Pakistans spy agency, and the Pakistani man pointed at the towers and said theyre coming down.
Assuming that this exchange actually happened, and like everything else in this book, I doubt this account is factual, so what? The towers had been previously attacked and it didnt take that big a leap in imagination to think they might be again. Right after the USS Cole was attacked, the guy from Yemen who owned my local bodega in Greenpoint, Brooklyn told me and a friend that this was just the beginning and said America had future attacks coming its way. Does that mean he knew 9/11 was going to happen? Or, more likely, is it that there is a large segment of the Muslim population that feels it is at permanent war with the WestJihad after all is the struggleto impose their backward beliefs about what society should be on the rest of us. Additionally, no one knew that hitting the towers with planes would bring them down. If that was common knowledge, its doubtful that our firemen would have been in the buildings at the time of their collapse.
To my opponents credit, he often introduces new characters in his book by telling you their criminal records right up front. He seems to have really learned that Karl Rove lesson of getting out in front of the story. He knows these con men will be exposed as thieves, liars and general criminals, so why not make it clear at the start? And while its possible that these men lied to so many people that they stole from or harmed, Hicks never entertains the possibility that theyre lying to him. About one of the main con men in the book, my opponent writes although he was accused of credit card fraud in Michigan, Vreelands credit card report states that he never had a credit card. Oooooh. Conspiracy! Or, more likely, he stole someone elses credit card and thats why hes charged with fraud. By the way, my opponent realizes later in his story that the 17-year old Vreeland refers to as his son is more likely his lover. Upon this realization, though, he concludes that Vreeland was the victim of child sexual abuse. I mean, he discovers the guy is a sexual predator and then calls him a victim. He later writes that Vreelands multiple reality mix of truth and lies is something akin to the multiple personality disorders of the victims of childhood abuse. Touching, I assure you, but now that we know the con man is a liar, why does my opponent continue to believe anything he says?
Thats a big part of the problem for conspiracy theorists, this inability to prescribe bad motives for the people they sympathize with. Sander writes the official story from the FBI is that Atta was a fundamentalist Muslim who hated America and led the 9/11 attacks. In real life, however, Atta seemed to be something of an Egyptian double agent who fell in love with an American ex-stripper and did a lot of coke. Again, assuming this is accurate, which, again, I doubt, my opponent can believe that the US government was ok with killing 3000 of its people and the CIA is in Pakistans pocket, but the idea that this one guy could live a hypocritical life is just beyond his imagination.
I actually laughed out loud when my opponent talks about one of his main sources Randy Glass, who my opponent describes as a jewelry conman turned FBI informant, that Glass revealed more every time they spoke. It never crosses my opponents mind that he was making it up as he went along.
Conspiracies are sexy, no doubt about it. They make people feel smart and in the know. But these conspiracy theories make no sense and seem to have no point.
In closing, the US government did not know in advance about 9/11. Is the government incompetent? Sure. Bungling? Absolutely. But in bed with the Pakistani government and a willing participant in 9/11? No.
Concluding remarks:
At one point in his book, my opponent quotes some rap lyrics by a group called Dead Prez who basically call the American government terrorists, etc. I love, no, make that I live, for quoting rap lyrics so I was going to go with Jay-Zs a wise man told me dont argue with fools, cause people from a distance cant tell who is who.
But actually, I think its very important to mount this argument, even if Im tarred by association. When I agreed to do this debate, I had so many people ask me why I would do something like this. They felt I was giving legitimacy to what they consider a crackpot segment of our population. Im not doing this for the people in the Investigate 9/11 shirts, Im not trying to change their minds, if theyve got the shirt I guess theyre pretty committed. Im also not doing this so that people who agree with me can nod their heads. Im doing it so there can be a record of opposition to the people that support these conspiracy theories, lest they somehow find their place into our history books.
Sander makes a lot of wild accusations in his book and talks about all these whistleblowers having their lives destroyed. Its funny, then, that he published this book and is sitting right here. Our all-powerful government seems unable to get rid of this one menacing café owner.
I won the audience vote which was very cool and a little surprising. The Lolita Debates are generally a pretty libertarian affair but "truthers" tend to turn up in numbers to defend their beliefs (say, in my comment section) whenever their favorite topic arises. Thank you to everyone that came out, I appreciate it so much. I was so nervous, as I don't do much public speaking (my last time was this), but my friends rawk the haus and gave me some excellent pep talks and hugs. Also, thanks to all the people on the other side who were nice to me anyway (and didn't just call me a fascist as they walked by). There were people who came up to me after the debate and said that while they disagreed with me they appreciated that I had done it. My opponent, Sander Hicks, was nice and it turns out we both like the same dive bars in Brooklyn.
There were a few minor incidents, but less than I thought there'd be. Two girls had a bit of a scrap inside. (I saw a slap but apparently there were also pushes). Later this Dutch guy was harassing me outside the bar about WTC 7, but my fellas got between us and that was the end of that.
I'm sorry I didn't get to hang out and chat more with some of the people that came to the debate. I was pretty exhausted from my DC expedition and really wanted my bathtub and bed. Thanks again for being there.
UPDATE: Shawn Macomber at American Spectator writes up the event.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Even NY's most ardent Democrats like what I had to say.Posted by Karol at November 8, 2007 12:44 AM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags: 9/11+Debate
"There were a few minor incidents, but less than I thought there'd be. Two girls had a bit of a scrap inside. (I saw a slap but apparently there were also pushes)..."
Good Lord, over an organized debate?
Good on you for engaging and promoting democracy and free thought in your own way. Although I disagree with the premise, your "spoken word" piece actually reads quite well here.
Thanks for making the effort, at least.Posted by: hashfanatic at November 8, 2007 01:58 AM
Good Lord, over an organized debate?
The truther stuff gets people real worked up.
What premise do you disagree with?Posted by: Karol at November 8, 2007 02:15 AM
It's not even three in the morning and I'm already back in Brooklyn.
Way to go, MTA.
You did a great job, Karol.
Any debate worth its salt provokes physical altercations.
Shades of Vidal-Buckley tonight.
-good times, G.Posted by: Gerard at November 8, 2007 02:46 AM
hashfanatic is one of those Ron Paul nuts who thinks that we deserved 9/11, that the Islamo-fascists aren't a threat, and that traitorous American-Jews are the driving force behind the fight against Islamo-fascism.Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at November 8, 2007 03:13 AM
I'm not surprised you won, rational thought can be shockingly appealing even in the face of those (largely unsexy really!) conspiracy theorists. Like any big fight, I noticed before the "match" the guy was a lot of bluster and boasting, whereas you, coming from a sane place, didn't need all that - wish I could've been there :-)Posted by: Steff at November 8, 2007 05:43 AM
A sad evening indeed for critical thought and acknowledgment of fact. That's right, go ahaead and deny all the peope listed below their experience and independent research ...
What is exemplified by the defenders of the govt. myth of 9/11 is that they fail to accept what happened in front of all of us.
People who defend distortion and choe to accept the blatent lies of our govt. are victims of denial.
There is a plethora of observable and verifiable evidence proving the govt. has not told us the truth, and yet the weak-minded prefer to chose cognitive dissonance in the face of the facts.
So many independent [Read: not on the govt. payroll] reseachers have brougt facts to light, so many First Responders (118 at the minumum) have detailed explosions going off in the buildings, so many whistleblowers have come out to peak the Truth and are ignored by our corporate-owned, profit-driven, government-regulated mainstream media, so many Victim's Family Members have said they still have no Justice for the murder of their loved ones ...
And yet the fearful, like many on this blog, sit back and defend the wealth of lies and distortions our govt. told us.
It seems that people here prefer not to think critically lest it distorts thier conditioned perceptions.
Amazing how the closed-minded believe whatever their government says, then try and find comfort through others who think exactly the same.
You have to know who's on the roster before you can pick the winning team, right?
So take a look at what the star military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job (he also said "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason")
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATOs Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said I think at simplest terms, theres a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Christensen) said I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, whose Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East, and astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIAs Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
Mquestions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says: The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) has disputed the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (see also this video, part 2 here, and part 3 here (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedys anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale)
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Given the unbelievable strength and depth of the roster of people who question 9/11, now who do you think the winning team is?
If you are a reporter, news editor or publisher, and you do not cover the strength of the team questioning 9/11, then you are part of the cover-up and no longer a part of a free, democratic press.
Everyone who is ready to make up a story why so many people above feel the way they do, why don't you go back to your little worlds and continue to weaken our democracy by stifling critical thought and investigation.Posted by: WeAreChange.org at November 8, 2007 07:09 AM
To We Are Change:
PLEASE, call your doctor and get back on your medication.Posted by: mimisk at November 8, 2007 07:41 AM
Karol claims, 9/11 Conspiracies is the result of a Cultural Phenomena, yet she cannot explain why mainstream media doesn't cover the evidence of 9/11 TV Fakery and Directed Energy Weapons as the most alleged *controversial issues and missed opportunities on BBC and History Channel to ridicule both.
She's worse than the actual hangout actually, looked complete unprofessional and unprepared next to Sander Hicks, who clearly won the argument, which helped to re-fresh the LIHOP hangout in softer liberal circles who don't care about science and logics.
Mainstream Media was part of 9/11 and that's why they allow the Thermite Hangout on TV, which still hugs planes.
More at "September Clues", "2001 A fake Odyssey", "9/11 Flatline", "911 Octopus" and the forthcoming "911 Taboo".
Check out also http://FCS.shortURL.com
I think that the highlight of the debate was when Ari was hitting on me.Posted by: E5 at November 8, 2007 08:59 AM
Well considering how well Karol did, if that was the highlight of the night; I'm flattered.Posted by: Ari at November 8, 2007 10:04 AM
Glad it went well (for the most part, those Dutch, I tell ya :). Way to represent the truth and I'm glad you found some common ground with Sander.
A sad evening indeed for critical thought and acknowledgment of fact.
I'd say that, presented with both sides of the argument, critical thought triumphed.Posted by: Shawn at November 8, 2007 10:09 AM
It was an entertaining debate - I haven't been to that many debates in general, so this one was interesting aside from just the weirdness of the topic.
Hicks (the other guy) basically was using the technique of proof by verbosity (just like the "We Are Change" guy in the comments) - throw out a whole set of suspicious-sounding facts and hope by sheer volume that they make your case for you. Even when the moderator gave him a chance to explain exactly what he thought *did* happen on 9/11, he went right back to his list of incriminating details about "Papa Bush" and the rest. I can see why he didn't want to answer the question - it's much easier to poke holes at Story A than to have to defend your own, even more tenuous Story B - but it still made him look trivial. I got the sense that he lives to maintain and grow that list. You responded in the best way possible, which is cool as a cucumber, keeping it logical and not getting angry. That was funny when he criticized your "debating trick" of attacking his weakest arguments - so devious of you! I really liked the Jay-Z lyric at the end. Thanks for bringing the "street knowledge, amazing to scholars". (Okay, that's not actually Jay-Z, but it was on one of his songs.)Posted by: Yaron at November 8, 2007 10:09 AM
Great job, Karol! I'm impressed that you won the audience vote; like you say, the Troofers tend to defend their territory and Sander's skilled at debate and is very comfortable behind a microphone. Wonderful!Posted by: Pat Curley at November 8, 2007 10:23 AM
Fact: In the 1990s, a banking scandal shook Pakistan and the US wanted to cover up its involvement.
Fact: In July 2001, an anti-Bush journalist killed himself.
Fact: Prior to 9/11/01, there was a handwritten note which may or may not have said something about an impending attack.
Fact: Prior to 9/11/01, a Pakistani man, upon leaving a Manhattan restaurant, pointed to the Towers and said they're going to come down.
Fact: The US allowed Saudi intelligence agents to fly our planes into our buildings and kill our fellow citizens so we can have an excuse to invade Iraq.
Fact: When NORAD was alerted to the hijacked planes on the morning of Sept 11, an American fighter pilot radioed his commanding officer to ask whether this was "an exercise or real world."
Fact: The US tried to plant WMD in Iraq but was unable to pull it off.
Fact: In July 2005, London police ran drills to simulate a terror attack on the Underground.
SO MANY FACTS!!! THE TRUTH MUST STILL BE OUT THERE!!!!!Posted by: Marco at November 8, 2007 10:36 AM
So sorry I couldn't make it, Karol. I have an ear infection and I'm forced to work!Posted by: Tatyana at November 8, 2007 11:03 AM
Ohhhh Nico the commenter above is clearly the Dutch guy who was bothering me outside.Posted by: Karol at November 8, 2007 11:14 AM
Fact: There is no hard evidence for any of these nutjobs to put forward.
Fact: Opinion is not fact.
Fact: Considering how big of an operation this was, you would think someone- no wait- a number of people would crack from guilt that they would come forward with ACTUAL PROOF!
Yep, the same people that claim this administration cannot do anything right are now claiming that the most impossible act to pull off was done perfectly.Posted by: StB at November 8, 2007 11:24 AM
Nico's German, and your experience with him is not unusual. Check out Matt Taibbi's set-to with Nico:
'Over a month after I first wrote a column slamming the 9/11 Truth movement, I continue to get hate mail in massive quantities. A group of Truthers even picketed my office, and I'm still picking food particles out of my scarf after an incident in which the movement's house lunatic, a wild-eyed German blogger named Nico Haupt, tried to goad me into slugging him in a West Side diner.
"Go ahead, heet me, then I haf beeg story!" he roared, scream-spitting half-digested detritus in my face.'Posted by: Pat Curley at November 8, 2007 11:33 AM
Nico thought the vote was rigged! How hilarious is that?
I'm sorry to our friends the Dutch for thinking this guy was one of yours.Posted by: Karol at November 8, 2007 11:51 AM
I, too, apologize the Dutch. May I say that After Forever is one of your finest cultural exports?Posted by: Shawn at November 8, 2007 11:58 AM
Questions never answerd during the 9/11 omission hearings:
1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?
2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?
3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane?
4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?
5. Where was George H. W. Bush at the time of the attacks?
6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?
7. Where are the flight recorders?
8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?
9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?
10. Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?
11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?
12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?
13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?
14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?
15. Why was no plane seen at the Pentagon?
16. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?
17. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?
18. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
19. When was the decision made to send the FEMA to New York?
20. Why did FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney tell Dan Rather he was in New York on Sept. 10?
21. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?
22. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?
23. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?
24. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?
25. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?
26. What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?
27. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the passenger lists?
28. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?
29. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be photocopied?
30. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?
31. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?
32. Which hijacker's passport was found in the WTC rubble? Who found it and what time?
33. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?
34. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?
35. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?
Many more UNANSWERED QUESTIONS here: http://www.apfn.org/APFN/WTC_questions.htm
cause I know it's coming, I'll ask and answer the questions myself:
1) did you know that the creepy German guy supported Ron Paul
No, I didn't KNOW... but I'm not surprised he does.
2) By supporting Ron Paul also, aren't you implicitly supporting his views on other topics?
Not at all. I agree with him in so far as 'Ron Paul should be the next President'. I doubt there is even one other statement he could possibly make that I would agree with. The guy was insane.
3) Don't you feel that Ron Paul or his grassroots should either distance himself from guys like that or explicitly say they don't want or need support from crazies?
No. If there is a man who votes for whoever his dog tells him to vote for (a more sane source than Alex Jones, IMHO) and that man swears his dog told him to vote Ron Paul... as a Ron Paul supporter, I have no moral or ethical duty to tell him otherwise. Were this man a friend of mine (and the german guy isn't) I may give friendly advice and say that he probably should pick a better criterion for picking candidates.
4) But if a crazy man endorsed Rudy, Hillary, Obama, whoever... he would deny the support, send back money, etc... Doesn't that mean that Ron should also?
No. What I feel is moral as per #4 above doesn't change just because of what other candidates do.Posted by: E6 at November 8, 2007 12:07 PM
I meant #3Posted by: E6 at November 8, 2007 12:12 PM
How bizarre is it that we Americans have the rep for not being able to debate any subject rationally, yet some European transplant is freaking out Americans, in America, who are seeming to accomplish this?
It is no better for any truthteller who is nonetheless a professional interloper, that chooses guerrilla tactics to muscle his point across to complete strangers, then it is to be a first responder from Staten Island who intimidates his wife and family into silence because they question the government's version, and he feels his personal heroism has been threatened.
This is not the way for anyone to behave over something that happened six years ago, not in America.Posted by: hashfanatic at November 8, 2007 12:18 PM
It was an interesting "debate." I doubt I'll go to another one though. It was frustrating to not be able to call him out on his many contradicting points. I was struck by his sincerity though. Even though he kept trying to push his book I believed he was sincere in his beliefs. I was also struck by how much he looks like Kevin Federline. Albeit a more hipster dufus version of K-Fed, but it is still an amazing likeness.
I don't think my pictures came out well though. My position wasn't favorable to taking pictures. I'll send them to you when I download them from my camera.Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at November 8, 2007 12:19 PM
just a quick note, we are change, you should really vet those people you mention. After less than 15 seconds of glancing at your list, one name pops out at me: Danny Jowenko. The guy who when showed videos of wtc1 and 2 collapse, said, "no", that they did NOT look like controlled demolition. Why do you take his work on one issue, but not trust the other?Posted by: abby at November 8, 2007 12:55 PM
What I found the most interesting was Karol's justification for participating in the event. I was in the camp of people she referred to who wondered "why would you agree to do this?". From what I saw, the debate did not change anyone's minds. The "truthers" rallied their supporters, and the non-truthers rallied theirs. This was primarily not a task of being persuasive so much as getting your supporters to attend. So, why bother?
The "truthers" probably listened to Karol and wondered how she and her supporters could fail to see a cover-up/conspiracy in the pattern of sources they had compiled. The rest of us sat there and marveled that so many people might find these "sources" credible. Motivations for why each side might do this (truthers: 9/11 is a pre-text for war; non-truthers: conspiracy theories make people feel important) are mere hearsay and, frankly, worthless. If there are facts to back it up, we can dream up whatever motivations we want.
The dynamic was also odd. Karol had not dedicated as much time to the topic, partly because she hasn't written a book about it, and partly because of course she doesn't think there's anything to protest or uncover, which doesn't exactly motivate one towards deeper research. As a result, Mr. Hicks came across as having a legion of specific sources to which Karol could not respond, prompting some in attendance to call her unprepared. But this is a necessary result of the fact that Karol's argument was to prove a negative (that the US government did NOT know/plan 9/11 in advance), which is very difficult. The nature of proving a negative is that your opponent brings facts and you repel them, which Karol approached broadly by questioning the credibility of the people involved. This must have been very frustrating for those in the audience who found the sources credible, as they would like her to confront each fact and perhaps attempt to disprove that opinion. But truthers have to understand that that is not a realistic request -- as other commentators above have abundantly shown, there are arguably thousands of such sources, and rebutting each individually is not a realistic way to proceed, certainly within the time frame presented for the debate. It's better simply to concede for the sake of argument that all those sources feel that way, but to respectfully disagree with them -- certainly far more people think they're wrong, and much like the "vote" itself at the end, a popularity contest is not very informative.
I'd also like to note that the presentation was quite odd. Mr. Hicks struck me as genuine and passionate, but you do not come across as more persuasive simply by being more emphatic in the way you speak. On the contrary, the points are often inversely related at their extremes, as in the case of Mr. Hicks, because it undermines the sense that he approached the topic with a cool, clear head. Far more attention-grabbing than anything he had to say was the way he said it. I don't think he's a "nutcase", but Mr. Hicks did come across as dangerously emotional, as if the issue had consumed him personally. And of course, it's not easy to get in front of an audience like that, and I'm sure he was nervous, but that doesn't explain all of it. It's not an exaggeration to say that if I had been in that bar listening to Mr. Hicks one-on-one and he was speaking like that, I would have genuinely feared for my safety. That doesn't mean he's wrong, of course, but it does make his conviction significantly suspect as someone who isn't thinking clearly, which unfortunately for the "truthers", also confirms pre-conceived stereotypes about so-called "conspiracy theorists". He actually came off worse than I expected, and I had low expectations.
Which brings me back to the question I raised at the beginning -- why do this? Why participate in a debate when you know in advance that everyone in attendance has already made up their minds? Why give credibility to a host of what, to me and presumably Karol, are a host of wild, incoherent claims? Karol's answer at the debate was the only thing I really found interesting: she said she wanted to create a record, so that when people looked back at what Mr. Hicks and his supporters are arguing, there will be a record that the larger community listened to them and disagreed.
That's an interesting thought, and on that point she may have changed my mind, I'm not sure. There are so many interesting topics for debate, it seems a waste to devote time to something as flimsy as this, but perhaps it's a good thing to create a record after all.Posted by: charlie at November 8, 2007 01:24 PM
In case E6 is refering to me as "the german" again, he's boldly lying. As a matter of fact, i didn't even participate in the Q+A and didn't mention Ron Paul at all. I also don't support him and reject all 2008 candidates. Thanks for the plug though.
For what it's worth i also didn't have lunch with Matt Taibbi but i confronted him with many others at a diner, when he offered a fist fight outside ; I also never spit in his face, which he made up. I actually would not deny it if i would have done it.
Whether the count last night was rigged or not doesn't matter since a LIHOP debate is in itself a hangout that's why i didn't participate in a debate at the event.
For everyone else check more tv fakery evidence at http://911videomashupsTOP50.blogspot.com ;
One of my favorite moments of the night was when the truther sitting next to me said something like "materialism!" when I was answering a question and started talking about being too busy with my job and my life to know the minutia of the "truther" argument and I said "that's right! I love the dough!" and got a smattering of applause from people within earshot. Trying to shame the wrong girl.Posted by: Karol at November 8, 2007 03:03 PM
Nico, I did notice that Taibbi was a little unfair in his article about you; all that stuff about "my girlfriend has denied to marry me" was not you talking about your own life, but excuses others give for not being active. And I have other reasons for not particularly trusting Matt.Posted by: Pat Curley at November 8, 2007 03:03 PM
The people who are losing the argument always seem to be the one's to have to hit.
Same with Taibbi.
And he also was cagey and covered up what really happened in his account.Posted by: Peg Carter at November 8, 2007 03:06 PM
It wasn't "materialism" that made me laugh when Karol said she hadn't the time to stay up on the subject, since she was busy with a job and all the other things she mentioned.
I just thought it was a funny way to try to win a debate.
It seemed Karol believed she could just win by default because "everybody knows" her side is correct?
Also, Karol's predicament is the predicament of all or most Americans - that's why the conspirators can get away with what they get away with. Hers isn't an argument against the position of the 9/11 researchers. In fact, it re-enforces our own argument. Karol doesn't know what is going on since she doesn't have the time to study or look at it. That is our argument.
I've noticed the "debunker" can sometimes inadvertently give us our best arguments.
I think that the idea Karol was being criticized, by anyone, for her alleged materialism is more imagination than anything else. Just as the idea expressed at the end of the vote, "And most of these people are leftists" also betrays an imagination, rather than a reality, of what the "opposition" is about. At least half, if not more, of people active in this issue are either culturally conservative or outright conservatives.
To paraphrase Karol's arguments:
"I don't know anything about this subject. But I think Sander's sources are lying."
"I, like most Americans, have a job and don't have the time to obsess over this subject"
"so if he knows more than me, that's why. I've got a job."
"and bills to pay."
"But his sources are probably lying."
"and the government is incompetent"
"and they didn't fire all those people who were responsible for mess-ups on 9/11 because that's how bureaucracy works [Karol's born in the Soviet Union]
should say, "former Soviet Union"
Mainstream Media was part of 9/11 and that's why they allow the Thermite Hangout on TV, which still hugs planes.
Posted by: Nico Haupt at November 8, 2007 08:07 AM
Nico Haupt we know you! We are watching you! And, we certainly know how you get around so much!Posted by: Radical Redneck at November 8, 2007 03:34 PM
I'm sorry for you, Peg, that you don't realize that it's not possible to lead a fulfilling life and at the same time be completely immersed in this insanity. I don't have to disprove everything any truther says, the burden is on you guys. And, you all don't do a good job, frankly, coming off as crazy and troubled in your arguments and unable to deal with rational conversation (for the most part, again there were some people there last night that were nice and normal seeming. Not you, though, other people). Sander is definitely one of the more normal ones, not believing most of the insane conspiracy stuff, and for that he gets called a government agent.
And, my argument is posted above, no need for your synopsis.Posted by: Karol at November 8, 2007 03:42 PM
I got my biggest chuckle from Hicks using his own book to bolster his argument, but not wanting Karol to use it against him. "My book is not the topic!" Also how he launched into a spiel about how great the Green Party is, but didn't want Karol to discuss the Green Party because "It is not the topic." I had another good laugh when he was asked how he knows when someone is lying to him. "Well, I ask them if they are willing to submit to a lie detector test. If they say yes then I accept that they are telling the truth." It is interesting to note that he's never actually had anybody submit to a test. He just asks them if they are willing. It is on the testimony of these people that he bases his argument on. It was almost like he was doing a stand-up routine.Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at November 8, 2007 04:08 PM
Everyone who has won a Seavey debate, give a wOOt!
wOOt!Posted by: Charles at November 8, 2007 04:51 PM
The Popular Mechanics debunking pretty much covers all the relevant ground. It really is that simple.Posted by: Kensington at November 8, 2007 04:54 PM
Getting home from last night's debate between Karol & Zander Hicks, I decided to watch Hillary Clinton's answer to Tim Russert's question on Eliot Spitzer's driver's licenses for illegals.
Hillary's answer made more sense than the rhetoric coming out of Mr. Hick's mouth. Every question he answered (or tried to answer) couldn't be simple. Every answer had all these "sub-categories" to get to the point of why the answer is what it is. Sometimes, Mr. Hicks spent so much time bringing up tagent information on top of tagent information, that questions weren't even answered.
How could a man so stupid as President Shrub, be so cleverly cynical in some devious conspiracy?Posted by: danielnyc at November 8, 2007 05:45 PM
"The Popular Mechanics debunking pretty much covers all the relevant ground. It really is that simple."
Well, no, it's not.
Popular Mechanics is to the field it covers as the Reader's Digest is to newsmagazines and literary journals, and the Chertoff family connection (and, thereby, the Bush Crime Family's connections to the article render the "facts" contained within to be useless for the purposes of debunking alternative theories regarding a catastrophe of this magnitude.
As I've said before, nobody more than myself wants the 9/11 Truth Movement to be completely wrong about what it asserts regarding this regime's role in the 9/11 occurrences, but if you want to mount a cogent response to them, you've got to come up with a refutation that's a bit more solid than palaver from Popular Mechanics.Posted by: hashfanatic at November 8, 2007 07:37 PM
"How could a man so stupid as President Shrub, be so cleverly cynical in some devious conspiracy?"
Oh, of course he could be.
You've never known anyone who was dumb as a post, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and evil at the same time?Posted by: hashfanatic at November 8, 2007 07:49 PM
Your aproach is all wrong.
RELAX (simply breath in deeply, and exhale in a soothing manner)
I was greeted by a trufer last night early as people were filing in downstairs. His first question was "so who's side are you on" I replied Karol's. His next question was "so your friend wants to silence the FBI whistleblowers???". Which to me, who was not expecting that particular combination of words sounded like an adult in a Charlie Brown cartoon(Wawawawan). I said "Huh". He repeated the same statement like rainman to K-Mart over and over again, and on the 3rd time I actually heard the words. I simply asked "how is Karol silencing the FBI whistleblowers" with a hysterical image in my head of Karol the hitwoman. His best answer to my question was that Karol was trying to stop Sander Hicks there by silencing the FBI whistleblowers.
Um Dude???
The moral of the story is if truffy had taken a deep breath he would have realized that Karol and the debate actually promotes investigations and discussions into 911, and even could help the poor FBI whistleblowers, not silence them. Furthermore a deep cleansing breath could have made truffy have a rational approach to conversation. This could insure communication of ideas and possibly lead to a dialogue in which concepts are exchanged.
I thought Sanders did a fine job of debating. While I do not agree with him, he was a gentleman and did his best to get his ideas out there. I guarantee that many people from last night have looked at some information about 911 in the last 48 hours, and if not they certainly were forced to think about it. Is that not what you people are about?? That is the way to go about it!
As for Flunkees be them dutch or just passive aggresive, Slow your roll and the frustration that is so obviously pent up inside could disapate.
Most people are open to a discussion and to learning, just not from assholes.
They stink.Posted by: M at November 8, 2007 10:13 PM
A conspiracy so vast that it would take thousands of Americans to pull off, and then to remain silent about --- when any one of them could drop a dime on the Bushies and make gazillions in a book deal.
But wait! anyone who ratted out Bush/cheney would be killed for doing so! Right? RIGHT??? I mean, what Bush did was so treasonous and despicable as to be grounds for impeachment and serous jailtime.
Then why aren't the "truthers" dropping like flies?? If they are THIS close to exposing the truth, why are they left alive to spread The Truth?
Oh...I know...if Bush arrested/imprisoned/killed them that would prove the conspiracy!
So NOT arresting/imprisoning/killing them is a ploy meant to flummox the American public!
Gosh! Those morons Bush and Cheney sure are ulta-devious, aren't they. Instead of killing you, they leave you alone!!! Diabolical!
And finally, if the Truthers have got the goods on Bush/Cheney, then why did the Dem-led House send Kucinich's impeachment bill into early retirement just yesterday?
Oh...I get it...the House, led by Bella Pelosi, are "in on it" too..
In the immortal words of Jon Lovitz of SNL: "Yeah...yeah...THAT's it".
Collectively and individually, Truthers are dimwits. If brains were dynamite they wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.
Posted by: anna keppa at November 9, 2007 01:04 AM
"Who's side are you?"
All-purpose response when a Troofer asks you that question:
"Sanity's."Posted by: Gerard at November 9, 2007 01:20 AM
"Collectively and individually, Truthers are dimwits. If brains were dynamite they wouldn't have enough to blow their noses."
"All-purpose response when a Troofer asks you that question:
My feeling is, snotty answers like that are simply what cause the extremes on both ends of the spectrum.
If you had the answers to all the questions that everyone on both sides have, the truth, as it were, would have been ascertained, all investigations would have been established, carried out, and conclusions reached already (and please don't bother invoking the sham "9/11 Commission" reports, or you'll just cement your own positions as suppressives into stone).
But, no, it's more important for you to establish a funky cultural reference for yourselves while building cred with your own partisan masters, than it is for the nation as a whole to have peace over the 9/11 occurrences, so we can get past it and move from strength to strength again.
Karol's true biases are regrettably crystal clear, but at least her approach, of getting up there and stating her case, fosters debate and promotes the idea of getting to the bottom of things and ascertaining the truth as a GOOD thing, rather than that which is to be ridiculed and mocked.
Way to be, New Yorkers (or a minute subculture of them...)Posted by: hashfanatic at November 9, 2007 02:22 AM
"Popular Mechanics is to the field it covers as the Reader's Digest is to newsmagazines and literary journals..."
You make it sound as though the underlying basis of PM's debunking was a bunch of journalists following some sort of marching orders (and I'm somewhat surprised you refrained from inserting the word "yellow" in there somewhere), rather than various experts who've devoted much of their lives to relevant fields of study, the appearance of whom within the pages of PM is rather incidental in light of the considerable expertise they bring to the table and the conclusions based upon that experience.
"...and the Chertoff family connection [blah, blah, blah]..."
Only in the context of innuendo and supposition which is part and parcel of the paranoid "truther" mindset. The fact is that you have absolutely *ZERO* evidence that PM was in any way biased, and yet would create such an impression on the basis of little more than a wink an a nudge directed, in large part, toward the choir to whom you preach. If you had any real interest in persuing truth, you should be exploring the conclusions therein head-on, point-by-point.
But such is not in your interest it seems. You cannot deal with the problem that PM's debunking creates for the arguments of truthers, and so you set out to destroy the problem by way of implication.
The Chertoff family "connection". JHC in a chicken basket, is this the best you can do?
"As I've said before, nobody more than myself wants the 9/11 Truth Movement to be completely wrong about what it asserts regarding this regime's role in the 9/11 occurrences..."
I don't believe that for one second.Posted by: falconApoda at November 9, 2007 03:23 AM
You've never known anyone who was dumb as a post, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and evil at the same time?
Yeah, but those types are the ones that end up on Cops. Sorry, but the 9/11 conspiracy, the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy, and likely all conspiracy theories all rely on the dehumanization of our political leaders and a penchant for complex, elaborate plans. The reality is that somebody would have a crisis of conscience and blow the whistle at some point.Posted by: Shawn at November 9, 2007 10:01 AM
Popular Mechanics is to the field it covers as the Reader's Digest is to newsmagazines
Really? If that's true, then apparently you, hashfanatic, know more about the subjects Popular Mechanics covers than their simplistic, hack writers.
Here's an excerpt from one of their articles:
To minimize drag, the plane will cruise at just under 30 mph at sea level. The custom-designed 12-ft.-dia. propellers will turn at a slow 500 rpm to maximize efficiency. While a tortoise-like pace saves energy, it introduces several problems. One is adverse yaw. When a plane banks into a turn, the aileron on the outside wing causes the wing to generate more lift than its counterpart on the inside wing. More lift equals more drag, which tends to pull the nose away from the direction of the turn. The usual solution is to use the plane's rudder to push the nose around into the turn. (It was the invention of this technique that made the Wright Flyer the first controllable airplane.) But Solar Impulse's huge wingspan and low airspeed will greatly magnify the adverse yaw problem, perhaps so much that the rudder won't be sufficient to overcome it. "It may become a critical issue," says Borschberg. Part of the solution, he continues, will be to modify the ailerons so that the drag acting on each wing is even.
Okay, hashfanatic, tell us what is so simplistic about this Popular Mechanics article. Show your expertise. What can you tell us about the photovoltaics used in this solar plane? What can you tell us about the effects of adverse yaw on an airframe, and the resulting control problems? Which composite-materials matrices are best for increasing efficiency? Show us the graphs and equations that helped you reach your conclusions.
Because if you don't know more than Popular Mechanics does about any given subject, what is the point of this argument?Posted by: mary at November 9, 2007 10:25 AM
Truthers = paranoid humans, run out of meds. And the profiteers who play them (folks selling books, t-shirts, etc.
Mad as Hatters, all of them.Posted by: Patrick at November 9, 2007 01:05 PM
"As I've said before, nobody more than myself wants the 9/11 Truth Movement to be completely wrong about what it asserts regarding this regime's role in the 9/11 occurrences..."
I don't believe that for one second.
Me neither. Freaks like this derive their entire identity from believing, and preaching, elaborate, fantastical, idiotic bullshit like this.
You've never known anyone who was dumb as a post, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and evil at the same time?
Yeah, but those types are the ones that end up on Cops
BWA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Posted by: Radical Redneck at November 9, 2007 01:56 PM
"Because if you don't know more than Popular Mechanics does about any given subject, what is the point of this argument?"
Mary, I don't need to understand the inner workings of a television to know that this particular show is just really, really BAD...
"Truthers = paranoid humans, run out of meds. And the profiteers who play them (folks selling books, t-shirts, etc.
Mad as Hatters, all of them."
And the neocon mercenaries, private contractors, oil concerns, and radical extremists that preach endless war against an imaginary enemy are completely sane, and just good businessmen when they rape the American public, on behalf of murky interests and powerful lobbies.
Got it.
"Me neither. Freaks like this derive their entire identity from believing, and preaching, elaborate, fantastical, idiotic bullshit like this."
Well, name-calling and character assassination are typical and expected from certain demographics, but who addresses the "radical middle", a sizable number of whom (I believe seventy percent, in New York, according to a recent survey) have no political agenda whatsover, find the government's version of events during the 9/11 occurrences to be dubious and somewhat questionable, in the face of recent events?
How do you address their issues?
Or does seventy percent of the population simply not matter, since they are not part of the power structure?
What response would you have if your children, in the course of studying the 9/11 occurrences as a historical event, seriously questioned what you unconditionally accept as fact?
Will it be intellectually sufficient for you to explain to them that those "trufers" are just crazy, or will you simply throw pop magazines at them with a straight face?
How will you explain the world's solidarity with you the day after, and how atrocities like the Iraqi Holocaust, wars based on nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and the way our government ordered torture against innocents, trashed that incredible unity against terrorism?
Certain aspects about what has been done to us will go down as urban legends, and a considerable amount will be chalked up to paranoia, but ALL of it is historical fact and, if you want to go down in history as the generation that reinvented reality in their own minds to suit their Fox-invented fever dreams and unresolved revenge fantasies, so be it.
Me, I'll keep fighting the dissonance...:)Posted by: hashfanatic at November 9, 2007 03:32 PM
Mary, I don't need to understand the inner workings of a television to know that this particular show is just really, really BAD...
But if your TV broke down, and if you blamed that on Bush and Cheney, you would have to understand and explain how they did it.
If you don't understand the technical aspect of these things, and if you claim that all conflicting explanations are motivated by hackery and Fox-invented fever dreams, the discussion is pointless.Posted by: mary at November 9, 2007 04:11 PM
Sounds like it was fun. Wish I was there. Keep up the good fight, Karol.Posted by: John W at November 9, 2007 07:19 PM
Mary, if discrepancies in the government's official version of the 9/11 occurrences are proven to be fraudulent and deliberately deceptive, you don't understand that Bush and Cheney (among many, many others) need to be held accountable for the years they perpetuated them?
I FULLY understand that precisely how they did it will have to be proven. I'm also painfully aware that the Bush Crime Family has been busily amassing property in Paraguay. I realize there is a moral imperative, as well as a budgetary one, to identifying, indemnifying, and "processing" the necessary witnesses in an expedited time frame.
"If you don't understand the technical aspect of these things..."
I, personally, as a citizen, don't NEED to understand the technological and engineering minutiae involved, any more than you need to in order to refute challenges to it (in fact, I had to meet with a bunch of technical wonks in order to write on the subject at the time it came out, several YEARS ago, and I can tell you it is boooring...
I remember stating at the time that further research and discussion on all these obfuscating details was required on all fronts, secure in the knowledge that the regime would continue to shoot themselves in the feet, lose any remaining credibility with all but an agenda-driven remnant,
and, in the interim, wait for the little birdies to start peeping from various corners.
Mary, this time is now upon us.
Why would I have thrown myself into this contentious fray and put my personal reputation on the line if I weren't somewhat more certain of how the script would play itself out and didn't want my questions, my reservations, my criticisms, and eventually my conclusions to be clearly on the record?Posted by: hashfanatic at November 9, 2007 10:00 PM
I, personally, as a citizen, don't NEED to understand the technological and engineering minutiae involved, any more than you need to in order to refute challenges to it (in fact, I had to meet with a bunch of technical wonks in order to write on the subject at the time it came out, several YEARS ago, and I can tell you it is boooring...
Yes, you do need to understand them. That was why the public school system was created - because in a democracy, a citizen has to have the ability to understand facts, to make reasonable choices.
Facts are often boring, but they're the foundation of any argument. Without that foundation you have no argument.Posted by: mary at November 10, 2007 08:44 AM
Mary, if discrepancies in the government's official version of the 9/11 occurrences are proven to be fraudulent and deliberately deceptive, you don't understand that Bush and Cheney (among many, many others) need to be held accountable for the years they perpetuated them?
1. Umm, if you don't understand them, how do you know these are discrepancies and don't just involve facets of science that you don't understand?
How do you know what looks to you like a government lie isn't just someone being incompetent?
Yeah, I know what you want to answer "but it could be! We don't know!"
You don't know whether it could be because you don't know enough to know whether what looks to you as impossible or possible (much less realistic) actually falls into any of those categories - you don't understand the science involved and are at most relying on what you read on the internet and the citations of fringe sites to be accurate.
This is what leads you guys to cite Steven Jones as a prominent physicist who supports what you want to prove -- If you knew more about science, you'd know he was involved in "cold fusion," one of the more famous scientific hoaxes of the last few decades and something that seriously calls into question his credibility on anything controversial.
Your lack of knowledge about the government causes the same sort of problems. Every contradiction must be a lie. Every incompetency must be planned. Everybody who gains must have orchestrated it.
There are two of the most basic flaws in scientific research you're falling for:
- You're forcing other people to prove a negative--Karol, the government, the Bush administration are reduced to having to prove there wasn't a conspiracy
- You guys pay no attention to Occam's Razor - you seek out the most nefarious explanation rather than the simplest.
I'm sorry, but "cui bono" is not a scientific principle.
2. Wasn't the whole knock on Karol by you guys during the event that she didn't do enough of her research? Now you're falling back on - you don't need to understand this stuff?Posted by: AD at November 10, 2007 12:57 PM
I'm also painfully aware that the Bush Crime Family has been busily amassing property in Paraguay.
What does this have to do with anything, other than some future real estate development?
"If you don't understand the technical aspect of these things..."
I, personally, as a citizen, don't NEED to understand the technological and engineering minutiae involved...
But if your going to make arguments relying on engineering minutiae, you'll need to be prepared to defend your claims and premises.
Why would I have thrown myself into this contentious fray and put my personal reputation on the line--
And yet, you sign your comments with a nom de plume.Posted by: Shawn at November 10, 2007 02:49 PM
"1. Umm, if you don't understand them, how do you know these are discrepancies and don't just involve facets of science that you don't understand?"
Because an adequate number of scholars have offered equally cogent challenges that have not yet been sufficiently been refuted.
"The thing about the truth, in all circumstances, is that it frequently makes the most convoluted explanations easier to understand...
"How do you know what looks to you like a government lie isn't just someone being incompetent?"
As a matter of fact, I don't...thorough, transparent investigation would reveal that.
Such has not occurred, and therefore, we cannot reach such a conclusion.
"Yeah, I know what you want to answer "but it could be! We don't know!"
Well? DO you?
Or do you just want it to be so badly, that you'll simply accept it as so?
"You don't know whether it could be because you don't know enough to know whether what looks to you as impossible or possible (much less realistic) actually falls into any of those categories - you don't understand the science involved and are at most relying on what you read on the internet and the citations of fringe sites to be accurate."
Well, I'm no scientist. And I don't pretend to have the necessary spare time in my busy, cosmopolitan lifestyle to devote to becoming an expert on the matter.
Here's the wrinkle, though.
I DO know, with absolute knowingness, the mindset of the total truth negators. I do know many of them have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. I DO know the character of the regime of current governance, based on every other single action of theirs I've witnessed, verified, and analyzed in depth.
I've personally witnessed dictatorships in other lands. I'm here to inform you that the only unusual thing about the one we currently suffer is that is is IN America. And it is always the lemmings who enable and empower the forces of evil.
So, again, who do I trust...those who seek the truth, or those who refuse to even question it, even WITH their freedoms?
"This is what leads you guys to cite Steven Jones as a prominent physicist who supports what you want to prove..."
I never invoked Steven Jones, or any other particular scholar, for that matter.
It would seem rational and sensible that not every one of these conflicting theories can be completely airtight, point by point.
How does that prove the government's version of the 9/11 occurrences?
"You guys"?
I don't recall having stripes tattooed on my backside...
"If you knew more about science, you'd know he was involved in "cold fusion," one of the more famous scientific hoaxes of the last few decades and something that seriously calls into question his credibility on anything controversial."
You have absolutely no way of knowing what I do or do know about science. I, on the other hand, can at least rest assured that, whereas the scholars for truth do place validity in science as a whole, the Bush Crime Family most certainly does not...
"Your lack of knowledge about the government causes the same sort of problems. Every contradiction must be a lie. Every incompetency must be planned. Everybody who gains must have orchestrated it."
Depends upon the government in question.
Again, when the Bush Crime Family is in charge, you can indeed count on the characteristics you list to be in full effect...
"There are two of the most basic flaws in scientific research you're falling for:
- You're forcing other people to prove a negative--Karol, the government, the Bush administration are reduced to having to prove there wasn't a conspiracy..."
I don't know enough about Karol's positions on the 9/11 occurrences to judge, although, based on at least one small 9/11-related activist demonstration she's coordinated, along with at least one other media figure, I'd have to say they are probably, IMHO, reprehensible, baseless, and suppressive in nature.
But, she apparently seems willing to back up her beliefs in public forums, in proximity to bizarre individuals in dimly lit spaces. She appears willing to promote dialogue without an excess of the childishness and ignorance many of her commenters choose to engage in. And she seems to be willing to at least consider the more regrettable aspects of this government's handling of the occurrences, without going so far as to betray her political bedfellows by admitting to them.
That is LIGHT YEARS ahead of how the regime, particularly Bush and Cheney, have publicly addressed the nation's doubts. They should have used a QUARTER of the time, money, and energy, spent on Rovian tricks to divert the people from what they already knew to be true, on issues like immigration, torture, rendition, etc., and addressed the profound distrust Americans now have for their government, a distrust borne of their own administration, and no one else.
They should have literally come clean with the American people, testified truthfully and honestly about their own actions during the commission, and not hidden behind legal loopholes and each other's tarnished coattails.
"- You guys pay no attention to Occam's Razor - you seek out the most nefarious explanation rather than the simplest."
That's because it's a tired cliche that has no applicability whatsover to what we've been discussing...
Simple, complicated, nuanced, even "nefarious"...all are meaningless, when the bottom line is, 1) the Project for a New American Century exists, and is, as one naive commenter mentioned here recently, only ONE of such similar intiatives, 2) we have absolutely no reason to believe that the above mentioned signatories had America's, and not other nations', interests at heart, 3)the occupation in Iraq and resulting Iraqi Holocaust were based on a lie, and 4) that there are still Americans who sincerely believe that Saddam Hussein caused the 9/11 occurrences.
"I'm sorry, but "cui bono" is not a scientific principle."
In Brooklynese, pleese.
I'm too tired to Google, and I've seen and heard enough foreign tongues babbled for one day.
"2. Wasn't the whole knock on Karol by you guys during the event that she didn't do enough of her research? Now you're falling back on - you don't need to understand this stuff?"
I never actually "knocked" Karol...I actually think it's quite courageous for a woman alone here to take what me and mine consider the "regressive" position and still seemingly emerge unscathed...
My specific questions regarding her positions revolve mainly around widdle, widdle points like Rudy's bunker, the explosions heard in the basement, the FDNY radio incompatibilities (STILL unresolved, I might add), poorly choreographed, live-on-the-scene media reports from the Beeb and others, the wreckage at Shanksville, the stand-down orders, planes inexplicably making U-turns in the sky...
And the hijackers themselves. I've never understood how anyone could believe those particular mooks could carry such a plot off by themselves...
AD, do YOU understand how such events could transpire, in a way that we little, uneducated, unenlightened ones cannot?
Posted by: hashfanatic at November 10, 2007 03:27 PM
"What does this have to do with anything, other than some future real estate development?"
Yeah, all rich, capitalist WASPs invest heavily in South American republics when they want to make a killing in real estate.
I fully expect to see Barbara Corcoran strolling the sunny streets of Asuncion...
Maybe she'll run into the ghost of Prescott there...Posted by: hashfanatic at November 10, 2007 03:30 PM
"And yet, you sign your comments with a nom de plume."
In my position, wouldn't you?Posted by: hashfanatic at November 10, 2007 03:31 PM
hashfanatic, I was going to waste the next couple hours responding to all five pages of that.
Then I remembered I had a life.
So, I'll tackle the first few.
"This is what leads you guys to cite Steven Jones as a prominent physicist who supports what you want to prove..."
I never invoked Steven Jones, or any other particular scholar, for that matter.
I never said you did.
I said "you guys..."
I never invoked Steven Jones, or any other particular scholar, for that matter.
Because an adequate number of scholars have offered equally cogent challenges that have not yet been sufficiently been refuted.
One of these contradicts the other.
You do basis for judging whether these guys you're revoking are respectable scholars, right? You do have some basis for judging whether these are prominent scholars or just professors at community colleges and random electricians being cited as engineering experts, right?
Let me answer that.
No, you don't. You don't know any of these guys names beside what you read off some fringe website. You've never heard of them before, you've never read their work, you've never read peer reviews of their work, and for that matter you don't even know whether they're backing you up or whether somebody in their parent's basement just decided that some offhand comment they made supported this, so they were going to write down their names as being 9/11 truthers.
For most of these lists, like the one cited above, you guys don't even list the names of the institutions/companies/firms these guys were affiliated with - and this is sufficient for you?
For every random electrician you could name, I could cite the engineering department at Purdue, one of the prominent engineering schools in the country as saying you guys are full of shit. For every fringe guy you people can cite (who I'm supposed to take your word as actually backing you up) I can point to the lack of people at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, the lack of people who have any real prominence in this area backing up these "obvious" contradictions by you guys.
Since Bush is the President, any guy I cite is going to get a response from you that any experts in the government who are best in a position to speak about this (even the numerous Democrats who are in on the conspiracy I guess) is either compromised by that fact or has been intimidated. Anybody in prominence in academia is someone who you guys won't trust because schools receive grants from the government and, thus, are in some way connected to Bush. If I cite anybody at a major architectural firm or in an engineering firm, you're just going to cite some project they did for the government and say they're tainted because of that. If you can't, then it's the prospect of such a business deal in the future. If not that, then there you can just look for somebody who gave a political contribution to them.
This is circular reasoning at its finest and is the trait of every true lunatic. There's **no way** anybody can ever prove you wrong. You won't look for the simplest explanation, you'll look for the most nefarious - and that's the main reason there's nothing scientific about your reasoning.
Well, I'm no scientist. And I don't pretend to have the necessary spare time in my busy, cosmopolitan lifestyle to devote to becoming an expert on the matter.
Hashfanatic, after you just spent that much time writing out that long of a response to me, I don't believe you have busier cosmopolitan lifestyle than any other hash fanatic.
Im sorry to rob you of this secret knowledge, this special insight that allows you for part of the day to feel superior to the teeming masses, the sheep out there, who dont get how much danger theyre in and how much they need you (some guy, like all of us, with an otherwise regular and ordinary life) to lead the way and free this country all from the covert tyranny. Its a great feeling to have. (Its the cool thing about being in-the-know on any conspiracy.) Dont take it personally. But its still bullshit.
"hashfanatic, I was going to waste the next couple hours responding to all five pages of that.
Then I remembered I had a life."
What would the planet do without your presence?
It's not my fault you have a thirty-second attention span and use sound bites from lightweight sources to edumacate yourself.
"So, I'll tackle the first few."
Yes, the very few you feel confident enough to bullshit your way through.
"I never said you did.
I said "you guys..."
*looks for attached Siamese twin or spirits of unseen truthseekers hovering under the ceiling fan*
I can only speak for myself.
I find the administration's conspiracy theory regarding the 9/11 occurrences highly questionable, as do most New Yorkers.
I've explained that already, and I've already mentioned I support no particular opposing theory set forth in total, so forth.
I'm looking for intelligent dialogue, not "Yes, you ARE one of those filthy unpatriotic trufers..."
If that's outside your range of capability, step off and give a saner, less unhinged wingnut a try.
"However, I never invoked Steven Jones, or any other particular scholar, for that matter..."
'Because an adequate number of scholars have offered equally cogent challenges that have not yet been sufficiently been refuted.'
One of these contradicts the other."
No, it doesn't, because, (again) I named no particular individual in the first statement, nor did I in the second.
I'm unfamiliar with Mr. Jones' work, and I'm not particularly interested in what he thinks, either.
What I want, AD, is for YOU to explain why you believe what you choose to believe, and I'd like you to explain to me what compels you to protest so vociferously against thorough examination of the events surrounding the 9/11 occurrences, particularly since you have such fervent views about being right, and vindicated under scrutiny.
"You do basis for judging whether these guys you're revoking are respectable scholars, right? You do have some basis for judging whether these are prominent scholars or just professors at community colleges and random electricians being cited as engineering experts, right?"
No, I ONLY give credence to neocon-approved sources, like "Skeletaur's" cousin and the authors of popular magazines.
Let me answer that.
No, you don't. You don't know any of these guys names beside what you read off some fringe website. You've never heard of them before, you've never read their work, you've never read peer reviews of their work, and for that matter you don't even know whether they're backing you up or whether somebody in their parent's basement just decided that some offhand comment they made supported this, so they were going to write down their names as being 9/11 truthers.
To you and your ilk, the New York Times is a fringe website, and you seem awfully intent on discrediting wide swaths of engineering experts and other seemingly worthy resources without coming up with much reason why you, yourself, are learned in these matters enough to fight to the death for your stand.
In the interim, all intelligent, reasoned debate and thoughful dialogue stops in its tracks, to witness your tantrum.
Which is pretty much the whole point, no?
"For most of these lists, like the one cited above, you guys don't even list the names of the institutions/companies/firms these guys were affiliated with - and this is sufficient for you?"
Again, you've obviously confused me for one of the merry, evil liberal no-goodniks found only in the deepest recesses of your own imagination.
Your need to have "these guys" validated by being affiliated with "institutions/companies/firms" betrays your own corporatist biases and elitist mindset.
An excellent comparison could be made with Mordechai Vannunu. Everybody remembers the man who may well have saved the world from the brink of nuclear annihilation, but virtually no one can remember the names of the companies he worked for, or the schools he attended.
Why, you ask? Because it didn't really matter.
"For every random electrician you could name, I could cite the engineering department at Purdue, one of the prominent engineering schools in the country as saying you guys are full of shit. For every fringe guy you people can cite (who I'm supposed to take your word as actually backing you up) I can point to the lack of people at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, the lack of people who have any real prominence in this area backing up these "obvious" contradictions by you guys."
But that's only because you're not interested in addressing ANY of the questions that trouble the greater majority of Americans.
You are a loyalist, your mind was made up before the first plane even took off, and no amount of evidence or logic that could suddenly materialize would cause you to change your mindset one iota.
That's why this dialogue is not constructive for me. I'm very much a concerned fence-sitter on many key aspects of the 9/11 occurrences, because I just don't KNOW, with knowingness.
You need to antagonize some other truthseeker with similarly rigid, established belief systems that are willing to set them in stone before the horses have circled the track. That, you can speak to.
"Since Bush is the President, any guy I cite is going to get a response from you that any experts in the government who are best in a position to speak about this..."
Most likely, but only because of your lemming-like approach to what you consider unrefutable facts in the first place.
..."(even the numerous Democrats who are in on the conspiracy I guess)..."
Well, obviously! Somehow I don't think YOU would doubt that for a minute!
"is either compromised by that fact or has been intimidated..."
Paging Valerie Plame!
"Anybody in prominence in academia is someone who you guys won't trust because schools receive grants from the government and, thus, are in some way connected to Bush."
AD, the types of operatives Americans have to worry about, and the institutions these neocon sleeper cells take refuge with, are not dependent on government aid for a blessed thing.
"If I cite anybody at a major architectural firm or in an engineering firm, you're just going to cite some project they did for the government and say they're tainted because of that. If you can't, then it's the prospect of such a business deal in the future. If not that, then there you can just look for somebody who gave a political contribution to them."
Uh, Captain Obvious, did I fire first blood questioning any of your sources or methodologies?
No, because you had none to begin with.
It is an indicator of a serious mood imbalance, schizoaffective, and/or personality disorder on your part, when you cite reasons for discounting your own bases for conclusion, in advance of even disclosing what types or forms of foundations you'll even cop to....Typical, and disturbing response, from yet another "patriot".
"You won't look for the simplest explanation, you'll look for the most nefarious - and that's the main reason there's nothing scientific about your reasoning."
Sure, I've evidentally done a stellar job of conveying this impression in my comments here (oddly enough without ever having said any such thing)...
Like your president, apparently you hear the voices.
"Hashfanatic, after you just spent that much time writing out that long of a response to me, I don't believe you have busier cosmopolitan lifestyle than any other hash fanatic."
Oh, you'd be very surprised...
"Im sorry to rob you of this secret knowledge..."
Why? You've had no reservations about robbing me of ten precious minutes to read this drivel.
Why would MORE grand larceny surprise me?
"...this special insight that allows you for part of the day to feel superior to the teeming masses..."
Oh, silly one...I LIVE to serve my people.
"...who dont get how much danger theyre in and how much they need you..."
More bizarro world foreplay.
I was never governed by a spirit of fear.
I took the golem, and turned him into a simple lump of flaccid clay, by erasing the letters on his forehead and rendering them meaningless.
"...(some guy, like all of us, with an otherwise regular and ordinary life)..."
That's what I keep saying, but no one wants to accept it!
"...to lead the way and free this country all from the covert tyranny..."
Who knows? Perhaps, one day, you will find yourself in precisely the same lofty position!
"(Its the cool thing about being in-the-know on any conspiracy.)"
Except I graduated high school, in Bonzo's first term. Been there, done that, bought the teeshirt.
"Dont take it personally."
"But its still bullshit."
Of course it is.
If I cite anybody at a major architectural firm or in an engineering firm, you're just going to cite some project they did for the government and say they're tainted because of that. If you can't, then it's the prospect of such a business deal in the future. If not that, then there you can just look for somebody who gave a political contribution to them.
This is circular reasoning at its finest and is the trait of every true lunatic. There's **no way** anybody can ever prove you wrong. You won't look for the simplest explanation, you'll look for the most nefarious - and that's the main reason there's nothing scientific about your reasoning.
Well, I'm no scientist. And I don't pretend to have the necessary spare time in my busy, cosmopolitan lifestyle to devote to becoming an expert on the matter.
Hashfanatic, after you just spent that much time writing out that long of a response to me, I don't believe you have busier cosmopolitan lifestyle than any other hash fanatic.
Im sorry to rob you of this secret knowledge, this special insight that allows you for part of the day to feel superior to the teeming masses, the sheep out there, who dont get how much danger theyre in and how much they need you (some guy, like all of us, with an otherwise regular and ordinary life) to lead the way and free this country all from the covert tyranny. Its a great feeling to have. (Its the cool thing about being in-the-know on any conspiracy.) Dont take it personally. But its still bullshit.Posted by: hashfanatic at November 11, 2007 01:09 AM
"It's not my fault you have a thirty-second attention span and use sound bites from lightweight sources to edumacate yourself."
Hashfanatic, you've spent this thread not only defending your failure to educate yourself, but excusing yourself from any need to become better educated about this in the future.
You're not in a position to cry foul over anybody else's attention span.
Few hash fanatics are.
I neither desire, nor feel any need, to argue over the opinions of a guy who openly admits they don't know about this stuff, argues against learning it - but, nevertheless, spends eight pages spouting their opinions anyway.
If I spent 20 pages discussing quantum physics it would be about as relevant as your posts. I've already stated I believe you guys have set up a world for yourself where you will look for a way to discount any piece of evidence, any bit of testimony, any possible contradiction in your arguments that I put before you--so I have little expectation that youre going to walk away finally thinking to yourself "hey, I don't know about this" or "maybe I don't know what I'm talking about."
My chief concern since you guys spout so much stuff is pointing out the problems with it for any serious person reading all this. Since I don't believe that any serious person would read eight pages from a guy who states up front that "I don't know this stuff and I don't feel the need to know it" (a guy who is so wrapped up in emotion at this point that they aren't even bothering to delete their notes from their posts) I'm not going to waste my time going through all of it.
If this is at all a representative sample, I'm fairly confident that in the amount of time you spend posting online in the past couple years, you could have read a few textbooks on this stuff. You could have contacted some reputable engineers, physicists, architects at a prominent schools and gotten their opinions on this stuff (just send them an e-mail). It's not my fault you don't feel like so.
In the mass of strawmen, ad hominem attacks, and complete tangents in your last post this was the closest I could find to serious rebuttals in the first couple pages
I'm unfamiliar with Mr. Jones' work, and I'm not particularly interested in what he thinks, either.
You said you don't invoke scholars for your support in the first quote. In the latter you do just that.
What I want, AD, is for YOU to explain why you believe what you choose to believe, and I'd like you to explain to me what compels you to protest so vociferously against thorough examination of the events surrounding the 9/11 occurrences, particularly since you have such fervent views about being right, and vindicated under scrutiny.
Ummm, 1.) where did I say I oppose examinations?
Don't get me wrong - I think you guys have preconceived goals. You have the results you want in mind and will accept nothing less, and will label anything else as tainted (and I have no interest in paying for any of that), but if you want to flip the bill - go to town.
2.) As for why I believe what I believe -
This will be a limited list, I'm sure, but for starters -
- WTC 7 is bullshit for a number of reasons, but among them the photos Truther publish of the building being fine always are of the side of it that's away from the Twins Towers. If you look at photos of the other side, the side facing them it was heavily damaged (and "pull" has never been used as slang for to demolish a building).
- As for the towers being blown up in a controlled demolition - people who cite this theory don't have the slightest clue of the manpower, the equipment, the preparation that's involved. The idea that this could be set up - in a building where people work 24/7 without the people noticing is completely ludicrous.
- The hijackers are on tape giving the last will and testimony to Bin Laden saying they did it. Yeah, I know Bin Laden said for about a week after the attack he didn't do it (when he thought there was a chance we wouldn't invade), but the guy is on tape before it ever occurred giving the go ahead.
- He's (along with other terrorists) attacked us numerous times in the past. The USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, etc. weren't hoaxes. It's not like we had to fake or set up an attack. At the rate he was going it just a matter of time before he tried something during.
- As for the Bush administration knowing -- The CIA receives warnings about hundreds of possible plots on a regular basis. From that, to stop it, they have to know what's real, what isn't, what's going to occur, specifically who's going to do it, and how they're going to go about. Even on the morning of September 11th, if you heard that planes had been hijacked and knew that a few months ago (out of the hundreds of other warning you'd received) that Al Qaeda planned to attack the WTC and, from that, you want to say that you would have drawn a conclusion with 100% certainty that "they're going to slam the planes into the towers" and you were willing to kill 100s of innocent people on the planes (given the possibility you were wrong)--if you want to say that to me you're a complete liar.
If **after** the WTC attack, in the space between then and the attack on the Pentagon, you want to then say to me that we should have shot down that plane, my response is that numerous other planes were still unaccounted for and if you had wanted to go ahead with that, and stopped the unaccounted for planes as your response, you would have killed 100s of other innocent people.
But look, you and I both know youll seek out some possible way a conspiracy could still be true - no matter what I put before you. You set the standard for yourself so that the mere possibility is enough while those who argue with you have to prove any of their evidence beyond any conceivable doubt. This is a waste of my time and yours.
Chances are I'm going to spend Veterans Day weekend doing something - if you want, you can spend it on the internet.Posted by: AD at November 11, 2007 02:38 AM
If this is at all a representative sample, I'm fairly confident that in the amount of time you spend posting online in the past couple years, you could have read a few textbooks on this stuff.
Or, you know, contributed to society in a truly meaningful way. Volunteering to read to kids, paint houses, feed the hungry, that sort of thing. There's no reason to topple the gummint now, not when there's going to be changes this time next year.Posted by: Shawn at November 11, 2007 03:33 PM
Screwballs like hashfanatic and Sander Hicks enjoy and thrill at the notion that truth is found among those who are incarcerated, particularly among those locked up for mental malfunction. Hash and Sander suffer from
the romantic notion that oppressed inmates who claim to hold the secrets of world powers are credible.
Is this the Terminator 2 syndrome? The nuttiest of
inmates, making the nuttiest of claims are the sanest and most informed of all? It's a cliche.
As Sander admitted when I asked him how he knew if
someone were lying to him, he hadn't a clue. Moreover, as he revealed, he would suggest to his informers that if necessary he'd "scape up a couple of hundred bucks for a lie-detector test".
Of course not one of his hyper-talkative informers was subjected to such a test. We also know that Sander himself was lying about the possibility of actually challenging the credibility of his informants. After all, without this stream of psycho liars feeding his
obsession, how would he collect the material
comprising his book, that compendium of loose charges, innuendo and unconnected dots that attempts to identify a crime and criminals who lack the Means, Motive and Opportunity needed to commit the single most devastating terrorist act in history.
One of the more hilarious aspects of the 9/11 spook fest is appearance of the "whistle blowers". Enough Special Ed kids to fill a large high school. Those are the Whistle Blowers.
Where the hell are the Whistle Confessors?
I know it doesn't puzzle the doofus Truthers that not one person with inside knowledge has come forward to spill the beans.
The best Sander can offer is his claim that his buddy, the mental case purporting to have the inside story on the President, committed suicide because he knew too much.
When asked if he knew anyone who died in the 9/11
attacks, instead of answering truthfully -- no -- he launched into a melange that ended when he said he "felt" he lost someone on 9/11 because his friend committed suicide a couple of months earlier.
His ridiculous answer suggests that he believes an
emotional connection to the attacks via death enhances his position as a conspiracy theorist. As though it validates his obsessive need to manufacture a scenario that indicts the government.
However, this need coincides with the belief of many that the closer a person was to Ground Zero, the more credible his conspiracy thoughts.
So where are the Whistle Confessors? Just one. One guy who was in on it. Just one. Even Enron, which boiled down to little more than a stock market scam, inspired one employee who knew the facts to commit suicide AND leave a telling note. Then there was the partner at Arthur Andersen who was able to explain much of the malfeasance in easy-to-follow detail. He, David Duncan, admitted he was part of the deception. A Whistle Confessor.
Where is the David Duncan of the 9/11 Conspiracy?
Nowhere to be found. Because there was no 9/11
conspiracy. Because 19 muslim hijackers commandeered four jets, hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Because the US, with its extraordinary freedoms, is as vulnerable to attack as 9/11 tragically proved.
Hello! eaebege interesting eaebege site!Posted by: Pharme352 at March 15, 2010 05:03 AM
Very nice site! cheap viagraPosted by: Pharmd926 at March 15, 2010 05:03 AM
Very nice site! [url=http://oixypea.com/oxoxvtr/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]Posted by: Pharmd706 at March 15, 2010 05:03 AM
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://oixypea.com/oxoxvtr/4.htmlPosted by: Pharmd57 at March 15, 2010 05:03 AM
Very nice site!Posted by: Pharmb972 at March 15, 2010 05:03 AM
Hello! dddadek interesting dddadek site!Posted by: Pharmg788 at March 30, 2010 10:29 AM
Very nice site! cheap viagraPosted by: Pharma454 at March 30, 2010 10:31 AM
Very nice site! [url=http://apxoiey.com/qoxvt/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]Posted by: Pharmc48 at March 30, 2010 10:31 AM
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/qoxvt/4.htmlPosted by: Pharme656 at March 30, 2010 10:31 AM
Very nice site!Posted by: Pharmc878 at March 30, 2010 10:31 AM