|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| Home | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. : All of the Democratic primary voters somehow believed Hillary Clinton would make a better candidate against Trump than Sanders would.And now we're stuck with Trump for at least 4 years.
Good job.
As Saul Bellow once said, "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong". Reply Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 07:09 PM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 28, 2016 at 07:11 PM
Seriously why should we ever believe these neoliberal centrist Democrats again?likbez -> Peter K.... , December 28, 2016 at 10:09 PMWhy when they were so very, very wrong!
Krugman ASSURED us Clinton was a great candidate who would easily win.
Krugman was clearly a neoliberal propagandist on payroll. He should not be even discussed in this context because his columns were so clearly partisan.Cal -> likbez... , -1As for "Centrist Democrats" (aka Clinton wing of the party) their power is that you have nowhere to go: they rule the Democratic Party and the two party system guarantees that any third party will be either squashed or assimilated.
In no way they need that you believe them: being nowhere to go is enough.
Remember what happened with Sanders supporters during the convention? They were silenced. And then eliminated. That's how this system works.
Krugman is a polarizing agent here in RiverCity...to our collective loss IMHO...as you know I don't have the Nobel.Egmont Kakarot-Handtke : , -1
But you might be giving him some hope with that "was"? Clearly he does not need $.He is writing for our....yes, American, maybe even Global citizenship, which he thinks is in peril. It is. Otherwise I'd be out fishing.
And you? What's in it for you? Are you familiar with the history of political party systems that transition in and out of 2 parties? Is this little forum an example of the 2 party system: pro/con Krugman?
Americans believe crazy things, yet they are outdone by economists
Comment on Catherine Rampell on 'Americans - especially but not exclusively Trump voters - believe crazy, wrong things'#1Americans are NOT special. Since more than 5000 years people believe things JUST BECAUSE they are absurd - in accordance with Tertullian's famous dictum "credo quia absurdum".#2
As a matter of principle, almost everybody has the right to his own opinion no matter how stupid, crazy, wrong, or absurd; the only exception are scientists. The ancient Greeks started science with the distinction between doxa (= opinion) and episteme (= knowledge). Scientific knowledge is well-defined by material and formal consistency. Knowledge is established by proof, belief or opinion counts for nothing.
Opinion is the currency in the political sphere, knowledge is the currency is the scientific sphere. It is extremely important to keep both spheres separate. Since the founding fathers, though, economists have not emancipated themselves from politics. They claim to do science but they have never risen above the level of opinion, belief, wish-wash, storytelling, soap box propaganda, and sitcom gossip.
The orthodox majority still believes in these Walrasian hard core absurdities: "HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states." (Weintraub)
To be clear: HC2, HC4, HC5 are NONENTITIES like angels, Spiderman, or the Easter Bunny.
The heterodox minority still believes in these ill-defined Keynesian relationships: "Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."
Until this day, Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians hold to their provable false beliefs and claim to do science. This is absurdity on stilts but it is swallowed hook, line and sinker by every new generation of economics students. Compared to the representative economist the average political sucker is a genius.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/12/28/americans-especially-but-not-exclusively-trump-voters-believe-crazy-wrong-things/?utm_term=.3b8eabe9eb3d
#2 Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
... ... ...Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem . "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."
.... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.
"What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."
.... ... ...
Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote. (He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work, if any, he will do on the show.)
Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.
"The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College," said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."
Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.
When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.
"They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.
There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.
Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.
The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : December 27, 2016 at 05:06 AM , 2016 at 05:06 AM(Does this have something to do
with Jon Stewart's retirement &
Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives
Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."
Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."
Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable.
As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source. ...
|
|
|
Dec 06, 2016 | moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian@ juliania who asked for clarification about my thoughts about religions in general and Xtians i particular.psychohistorian, Dec 4, 2016 8:23:42 PM | 108I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 12 years, the last 4 with Jesuits. I do give the Jesuits credit for teaching me to think.
As I thought more and educated myself further about history I wondered why religions were not fully relegated to honorable myth after the Enlightenment period. It was clear to me that they were pushing rules of social organization that were patriarchal and elitist....and still are. Their enforcement of the rules is beyond hypocritical now and I see many who ascribe to one or another but in name only. If Xtians leaders and their followers were true to their precepts we would not have war and the money changers would not exist.....hence my Devils pact theory.
And then as I learned more about the Cosmos we live in I realized the hubris of a species that creates Gods in their likeness. I explain it to folks this way:
1. Science, which I believe much of, has learned that the Cosmos consists of almost 5% matter, which we are starting to know some things about but still clueless in many ways.
2. The remaining 95% of the Cosmos the science folk have some theories about but mostly we are very clueless about that 95%
3. Does it make any sense that our species that is part of the 5% matter of the Cosmos can discover/create/believe in any deity given our utter ignorance at this point in our existence?
4. I think it takes the utmost hubris to do so and view religions as crutches for those that can't handle not knowing.
That said, I think that religions have come up with some useful thoughts to help guide society but should not be thought of as having any more of a clue than the scientists. Religions, IMO, should be relegated to the wonderful myth they represent in our history, certainly longer than the 6K years the "serious" Xtians believe. True science, that is based rigorously on rules of discovery has, IMO, ongoing relevance in our world.
Since I am on this topic and it is an open thread let me share some parts of an interview between Bill Moyers and Isaac Asimov that speaks more to this subject:
MOYERS: The fundamentalists see you as the very incarnation of the enemy, the epitome of the secular humanist who opposes God's plan for the universe. In 1984, the American Humanist Society gave you their Humanist of the Year Award, and you're now president of that organization. Are you an enemy of religion?
ASIMOV: No, I'm not. What I'm against is the attempt to place a person's belief system onto the nation or the world generally. We object to the Soviet Union trying to dominate the world, to communize the world. The United States, I hope, is trying to democratize the world. But I certainly would be very much against trying to Christianize the world or to Islamize it or to Judaize it or anything of the sort.
My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist, too. Now, they may say that I believe evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don't want everyone to believe that evolution is true, I want them to study what we say about evolution and to decide for themselves.
Fundamentalists say they want to treat creationism on an equal basis. But they can't. It's not a science. You can teach creationism in churches and in courses on religion.
They would be horrified if I were to suggest that in the churches they teach secular humanism as an alternate way of looking at the universe or evolution as an alternate way of considering how life may have started. In the church they teach only what they believe, and rightly so, I suppose. But on the other hand, in schools, in science courses, we've got to teach what scientists think is the way the universe works.
MOYERS: But this is what frightens many believers. They see science as uncertain, always tentative, always subject to revisionism. They see science as presenting a complex, chilling, and enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal laws. They see science as dangerous.
ASIMOV: That is really the glory of science - that science is tentative, that it is not certain, that it is subject to change. What is really disgraceful is to have a set of beliefs that you think is absolute and has been so from the start and can't change, where you simply won't listen to evidence. You say, "If the evidence agrees with me, it's not necessary, and if it doesn't agree with me, it's false." This is the legendary remark of Omar when they captured Alexandria and asked him what to do with the library. He said, "If the books agree with the Koran, they are not necessary and may be burned. If they disagree with the Koran, they are pernicious and must be burned." Well, there are still these Omar-like thinkers who think all of knowledge will fit into one book called the Bible, and who refuse to allow it is possible ever to conceive of an error there. To my way of thinking, that is much more dangerous than a system of knowledge that is tentative and uncertain.
MOYERS: Do you see any room for reconciling the religious view in which the universe is God's drama, constantly interrupted and rewritten by divine intervention, and the view of the universe as scientists hold it?
ASIMOV: There is if people are reasonable. There are many scientists who are honestly religious. Millikan was a truly religious man. Morley of the Michelson-Morley experiment was truly religious. There were hundreds of others who did great scientific work, good scientific work, and at the same time were religious. But they did not mix their religion and science. In other words, if something they understand took place in science, they didn't dismiss it by saying, "Well, that's what God wants," or "At this point a miracle took place." No, they knew that science is strictly a construct of the human mind working according to the laws of nature, and that religion is something that lies outside and may embrace science. You know, if there were suddenly to arise scientific, confirmable evidence that God exists, then scientists would have no choice but to accept that fact. On the other hand, the fundamentalists don't admit the possibility of evidence that would show, for example, that evolution exists. Any evidence you present they will deny if it conflicts with the word of God as they think it to be. So the chances of compromise are only on one side, and, therefore, I doubt that it will take place.
MOYERS: What frightens them is something that Dostoevski once said - if God is dead, everything is permitted.
ASIMOV: That assumes that human beings have no feeling about what is right and wrong. Is the only reason you are virtuous because virtue is your ticket to heaven? Is the only reason you don't beat your children to death because you don't want to go to hell? It's insulting to imply that only a system of rewards and punishments can keep you a decent human being. Isn't it conceivable a person wants to be a decent human being because that way he feels better?
I don't believe that I'm ever going to heaven or hell. I think that when I die, there will be nothingness. That's what I firmly believe. That's not to mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and rape and everything else because I don't fear punishment. For one thing, I fear worldly punishment. And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of my own conscience. I have a conscience. It doesn't depend on religion. And I think that's so with other people, too.
Even in societies in which religion is very powerful, there's no shortage of crime and sin and misery and terrible things happening, despite heaven and hell. I imagine if you go down death row, and ask a bunch of murderers who are waiting for execution if they believe in God, they'll tell you yes. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people in jail for fraud, for violent crimes, for everything, includes a smaller percentage of acknowledged atheists than we have in the general population. So I don't know why one should think that just because you don't want a ticket to heaven, and you don't fear a ticket to hell, you should be a villain.
One more quote from that Bill Moyer/Isaac Asimov interview and then I will stopMOYERS: Is it possible that you suffer from an excessive trust in rationality?
ASIMOV: Well, I can't answer that very easily. Perhaps I do, you know. But I can't think of anything else to trust in. If you can't go by reason, what can you go by? One answer is faith. But faith in what? I notice there's no general agreement in the world. These matters of faith, they are not compelling. I have my faith, you have your faith, and there's no way in which I can translate my faith to you or vice versa. At least, as far as reason is concerned, there's a system of transfer, a system of rational argument following the laws of logic that a great many people agree on, so that in reason, there are what we call compelling arguments. If I locate certain kinds of evidence, even people who disagreed with me to begin with, find themselves compelled by the evidence to agree. But whenever we go beyond reason into faith, there's no such thing as compelling evidence. Even if you have a revelation, how can you transfer that revelation to others? By what system?
|
|
|
Sep 05, 2016 | www.unz.com
438 CommentsA year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
For Further Reading:
- Our American Pravda
- American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated?
- American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies
- John McCain: When "Tokyo Rose" Ran for President
- The Good Fortune of Mr. Browder? – Israel Shamir
- The Magnitsky Hoax? – Philip Giraldi
- Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:26 am GMT • 100 Words
Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition.
Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
• Replies: @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:55 am GMT • 100 Words
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
–William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981
You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
• Replies: @AnotherLover People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the picture. Where you wrote:"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more? And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in good and hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- FKA Max says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:56 am GMT • 400 Words
Mr. Unz,
this study/paper might by of interest to you: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/CONSPIRE.doc
[MORE]
Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the original typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may have been made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.
Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Ted Goertzel1
Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.
KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust
Table Three
Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
Scale
Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All CommentsIt is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive research on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology since the 1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of alienated thinkers on both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987; Berlet, 1992). Even more surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a focus of the efforts to measure "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981; LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960) which was intended to overcome the ideological bias in authoritarianism measures.
On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or emotional makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of authoritarianism simply ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs must be based on underlying psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these scales ask mostly about beliefs held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they find authoritarianism to be a right-wing phenomenon. Research with projective tests (Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials (Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand, has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking can be found on both the left and the right.
- Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:08 am GMT • 900 Words
One of the greatest conspiracy theories of our time is that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. This is refuted by the US government, despite occasional suggestions by political leaders. From my blog, that has links:
May 21, 2016 – Another 9-11 Truther
[MORE]
In my April 16th blog post, I mentioned that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and 9-11 Commission co-chair Bob Graham had become a "Truther", i.e. one who openly doubts the official 9-11 story. It seems the powers that be tried to shut him up. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) openly criticized the Obama administration for trying to strong-arm Graham, who is pushing to declassify 28 pages of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. He recounted how Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.) and her father, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), were detained by the FBI at Dulles International Airport outside Washington. He said the FBI "took a former senator, a former governor, grabbed him in an airport, hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy."Last week, another Republican member of the 9-11 Commission, former Navy Secretary John F Lehman, said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed in detail in the 28 pages. Lehman said: "there was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."Events this past year in Syria highlighted close ties between Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our CIA The 9-11 attacks generated the "Pearl Harbor" type of anger they needed to rally the American people to support their semi-secret plan to conquer all the Arab world.
Here is a summary of events for those confused by American corporate media. Al Qaeda is not an organization. It is a CIA computer database of armed Arab nationalists who violently oppose western domination of the Arab world. (Al Qaeda is Arabic for database.) This database was established by the CIA in the 1980s when our CIA trained and armed Arabs to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was never an official leader since it has never been a real organization, although he did lead a large group of Arab nationalists who lived in Afghanistan.
OBL had nothing to do with 9-11, he didn't even know about it until it was reported in the media. He was never formally accused of the attacks because there is zero evidence. OBL was a wealthy Saudi who is said to have inspired the attacks. Our government blamed a Kuwaiti, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (pictured), and a dozen Saudis who died in the airplanes. These persons had never been to Afghanistan and are said to have planned and trained for the attacks in the Philippines, Germany, and the USA. Then why was Afghanistan invaded, and later Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen? But we did not invade Saudi Arabia! Instead, recall that days after 9-11 several jets from our federal Justice Department rounded up Saudi suspects in the USA and flew them home before FBI agents could ask them questions.
All this explains why the accused mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, has yet to go to trial almost 16 years since 9-11! He has not been allowed to speak to anyone outside the CIA Even the 9-11 Commission was not allowed to interview him. The U.S. military set up a kangaroo court at Gitmo to hold a trial many years ago, but brave military defense lawyers keep causing delays by insisting on a fair trial. It seems evidence is so "sensitive" that our CIA does not want it revealed. even in a secret military court. Whenever documents are requested by the defense, some are destroyed instead! This included all the CIA interrogations of the accused!
Our media propaganda is so prevalent that nearly all Americans think OBL was the 9-11 mastermind, and since he is dead the case is closed. However, there is zero evidence of his involvement, something our government has long acknowledged. Americans watched thousands of hours of television coverage of the 9-11 attacks. Ask one if they think the accused mastermind of the attacks should be put on trial, and they'll have no idea what you are talking about. More Americans are becoming aware and demanding action, who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating these crimes.
The failed invasion of Syria has revealed that the Saudis, our CIA (with its defense contractor and media allies), and Israel have been working to conquer all the Arab world and control it with corruption and puppet dictators. Over the past couple years the Saudi government has changed hands and this CIA-Saudi-Israeli alliance has frayed, mostly because of failures in Syria and Yemen. Will the Saudis now be blamed for 9-11 to satisfy public demands for the truth, and to protect other conspirators? Will this lead to a CIA-Israeli coup to take over Saudi Arabia? Or will other high-level truthers surface and expose our nation's darkest secret? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Lot says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:14 am GMT • 100 Words
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
• Replies: @AbrahamGiven how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
How is this a problem? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Chief Seattle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:17 am GMT • 100 Words
So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
• Replies: @art guerrilla ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails...
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff...
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
...then why am i crying inside... , @anti_republocrat Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee...," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, "...we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s**t up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 am GMT • 300 Words
The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops – or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage? , @Konga So true!
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong... , @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland. , @WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been for nothing.I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it. Reply , @Sam Shama [Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw? , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jason Liu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:19 am GMT
Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
• Replies: @Nathan Hale Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ore... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Emblematic says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:17 am GMT
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':
• Replies: @Pat Casey
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- polistra says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:03 am GMT • 100 Words
Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian.
Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- smiddy says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:13 am GMT • 500 Words
Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality or coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of American Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white privilege" I was "highly exposed" to in college).
Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative; nothing helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which our society is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a more open mind in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's shared universal reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research methodology, I finally applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know where this story ends), then WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping
For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the countless amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard way of Operation Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis (before hand), the hand THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so on, it becomes all too clear how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has become. Not once did I ever hear one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're so consistently implicitly left out of the script its terrifying.
Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I complained to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy League but back to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us) over having to read about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th time (each). Point is, even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at all, it still didn't feel healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted already. I accepted their stories at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on, yet according to my teacher I "lacked empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish were treated in the 17th we'd be fine). It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that has been institutionalized, and its borderline brain-washing, regardless of the said tragedy's validity.
There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over more than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively experienced), much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this, is its like a meta-intellectual betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman who wronged you in all the worse ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark corner of history you delve into, thus the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its this implicit brand of deceit that is patently feminine which can be inductively read from the MSM to "read the tea leaves"
I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your publication, and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world where I had never stumbled upon your work!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Gordo says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:11 am GMT
Excellent article Mr. Unz.
- JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT • 100 Words
Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithThe rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:41 am GMT • 300 Words
I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" - I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
• Replies: @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling. , @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT • 200 Words
There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
• Replies: @Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz.... , @dahoit The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters today.
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self haters,as are the dissidents. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:20 pm GMT
I'll believe in the moon landings as soon as the Mars Rover shows all of us what Congress Woman Shiela Jackson Lee was looking for when she asked if it could see the flags we left on the moon.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm GMT • 300 Words
One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusStepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Emblematic I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.
• Replies: @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
• Replies: @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth. , @Alden Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about ZionismI've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or - beyond the usual understandings about human nature - is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning - by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult - like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery. , @John Jeremiah SmithIs there the possibility of redemption?Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem? , @Mulegino1 To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded - thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia - and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm GMT @polistra Simplifying one "contradiction":
Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.
• Replies: @Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm GMT • 200 Words
Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithThe definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". , @zib but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their studyNice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html
Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is. , @Boris
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy. , Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:03 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult – like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT • 600 Words
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho , @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me. , @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Connecticut Famer says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
"But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled? , @dahoit I was 12 and had the same feeling. Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day. And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
• Replies: @Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".
• Replies: @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm GMT • 100 Words
Superb article.
It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good to have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that of derision.
I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades.
"Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power.
Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America or anywhere else "
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Paul Jolliffe says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
• Replies: @Ron UnzHere is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades...Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession., @LondonBob No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Clearpoint says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly different rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds like target marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism – dumb and dumber. Apparently critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily marginalized.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT • 200 Words @JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
• Agree: Jacques Sheete • Replies: @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithNo what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT • 200 Words
Good epistemological analysis.
The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone knows the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying challenge of knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they know from direct personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the modern age when almost everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from other people of whose character and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge, but from the arrangement of ink on paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem, there is probably no solution, although either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those of some maturity and education, or a division of the franchise according to what each particular individual could be expected to know something about, would be a step in the right direction.
As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by corporate owned media and other powerful interests.
Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state crimes against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available here . There is some interesting academic material about SCADs here .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 100 Words
In spook circles, leaving clues is referred to as inoculation .refer to the work of Bill McGuire in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have left intact on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the "757″ in the facade of the pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial question " where are the wings, the mangled cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book
"Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to keep the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read.I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro black criminal and anti police
Have fun on Labor Day
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm GMT • 200 Words @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."
Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- landlubber says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:10 pm GMT
journalistic and sociological works
Pravda.
And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.
• Replies: @bizyou are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landingsActually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. , @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Laurel says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:22 pm GMT
The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.
• Replies: @Old fogey Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
@ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
-
• Replies: @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt–something Schmitt himself acknowledged.
• Replies: @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusThe charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged.
This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
• Agree: SolontoCroesus • Replies: @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you. , @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:50 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point?
I was having a little fun with the fact that a Congress Critter thought the Mars Rover could drive up to an American flag planted by the Astronauts on the Earth's Moon.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:54 pm GMT @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
Schmitt disagreed with you.
• Replies: @5371 This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics–i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.
• Replies: @5371 When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel.Indeed, and absolute drivel. During the first two moon landings, I was working as an electronic technician, aligning and tuning the radio communications antennas at one of the monitor sites. Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. Either that, or space aliens operating a whole 'nuther conspiracy used "seekrut" technology to make it look like signals received at every monitor station were from the Moon. If so, kudos on a boss fake-out scheme."Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. "
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithI suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hibernian says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
"FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number?
• Replies: @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?
The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
• Replies: @Decius I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:11 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz From my experience of actors, including amateur actors i have no problem believing Pat Casey's old guy talking about aliens was either a scripted gig maybe for a bet, maybe to see if he could get some money for his family or for medical treatment and the "tells" I totally discount though it might merely be evidence that he's been telling the story for yonks and no one bothers to pull him up on the one mentioned.
As to the demeanour of the one astronaut that I have now seen from below your comment it does invite questions but yyou seem to be wrong about it being an occasion for celebration. It seems to be much later when they are probably bored out of their minds and quite pissed off at being required to perform yet again as circus ponies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Jw0pwTtus
Ok, what about that tell? You should really watch the whole thing here if you haven't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4
My friend knows the guy that interviewed the man about Eisenhower and area 51. He's supposed to be the steely-eyed vet in a field full of dupes. It's possible he's a charlatan employing an actor, but that's not what it sounds like. The one that I can't decide on is this disinformation agent Richard Doty from the film Mirage Men. That one is worth watching.
My education into the likelihood of extraterrestrials took a quantum leap when I watched The Pyramid Codes on netflix. Mind you that is not an idea the series puts forward-the footage of the Pyramid they don't take tourists to see is enough to know those folks had technology we do not have today.
For the record I believe we landed on the moon. But, the idea that we did not probably comes from the underbelly of our own government.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 600 Words
"HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article&_r=0Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy .
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the voters will destroy his chances.Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's Trojan horse .NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessarry platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran,may be Kennedy would have survived . But his earlier political escapades were also built on something that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground.All are done openly . When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them . With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's Russia despite being his co conspirator .Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
First Iraq war,if went bad from begining, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who knows what media can deliver . They delivered Joe Liberman .
- Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the Lusitania because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly accepted since 1982, after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173 tons), and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning of potential targets was impractical."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lusitania-British-ship
One of the newest has got little attention, the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was a computer guy leaking info to Wikileaks.
If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the headlines, but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian hackers persist with no hard evidence.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- JL says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm GMT • 100 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithOf course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 - 50,00o potential players, globally.It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jeffrey S. says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/10/charles-beard-living-legend-or-archaic-icon/
Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically - rigorous thought can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract from reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the childish belief that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social impact is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the middle.
Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11, or the Manichean narrative of the Second World War and the Myth of the 6 Million.
On the other hand, there is Hillary Clinton with her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and idiots like Glenn Beck who believe that Vladimir Putin is seeking to conquer the world.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.
As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:44 pm GMT • 300 Words NEW! @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you? .The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
• Replies: @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth. , @Jacques Sheete While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:
Moronic Intellectuals
By Thomas DiLorenzohttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mulegino1 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).
Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded – thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia – and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world.
• Agree: SolontoCroesus Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm GMT @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.
[Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.
• Replies: @Ron UnzThe letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Robard says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:04 pm GMT
If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first place? Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Lawrence Fitton says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm GMT • 200 Words
belief in the fantastic is way more entertainment than belief in the mundane. that why the history channel prefers clownish, ancient alien astronaut theorists to phd historians.
still, the unlimited universe of chance & probability assures rare events happen all the time. in other words, improbable events – because there is infinity of them – are bound to happen with regularity.for instance, the author highlights the improbability of a bunch of arabs with box cutters as the perpetrators of 9/11. he's right. taken in isolation, of all the things that might have happened, the occurrence is rare in indeed. but, today, something that's never happened before will happen. and tomorrow too and the day after that. but, because the occurrences may not be as spectacular as 9/11, few will learn about them.
we believe what we want to believe. we can't know everything about anything, so there will always be questions.
9/11, the kennedy assassination, the lunar landing, aliens built the pyramids.
what is real and what is not depends on a point of view.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- •
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:24 pm GMT @Ron Unz
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.
While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:
Moronic Intellectuals
By Thomas DiLorenzohttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.
It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- • Replies: @Anonymous
I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon landing was a hoax.Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.
...
And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.
But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be more effective. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
• Replies: @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points). Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.
http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions
• Replies: @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm GMT • 100 Words
By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that otherwise I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real truth . This is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality!
And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source.
This is all very much appreciated.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.
• Replies: @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT @Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number?
So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
• Replies: @Darin Yes, why?If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point? , @anonymous Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:
https://youtu.be/Bo00IcRj_4Y Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
• Replies: @utu Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here. , @Pat CaseyThe reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT • 100 Words
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."
And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ
• Replies: @Peripatetic commenter I see that someone has updated a document about that:https://infogalactic.com/info/Conspiracy_theory#Pejorative_meaning Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- • Replies: @Mr. Anon "Oleynik is Ukrainian."
The Ukrainians were, you know, part of the same Soviet Union which failed to put a man on the Moon.
"At any rate, attacking his ethnic background is just a cheap ad hominem argument."
No, it is pointing out what might be real motive for him to do what he is doing.
"Soros and his foundations funded, and still do presumably, scholarships and education grants in Eastern Europe following the Soviet collapse."
And what do you think of Soros? Do you think he is a manipulator of peoples, movements, entire governments? If so, what does it say that this guy was once on his payroll? Or do you simply temporarily suspend one part of your world-view when it becomes inconvenient for another part of it?
In any event, his purported photgraphic analysis is crap. He's talking about parallax exhibited in pairs of images taken from different bearings - but the pictures themselves were not even taken at the same locations, as can easily be seen from the details in the foreground. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:30 pm GMT • 100 Words @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
• Replies: @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy. , @HippopotamusdromeThe fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face of aircraft. Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields. , @Jonathan Revusky
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80% of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess, there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly mobilize your forces.3000 people is really just peanuts on a national level. If the result is that you get all this outrage and suddenly the majority of the population is screaming for war, well that could be well worth it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:35 pm GMT • 700 Words @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?[Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) – Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed – let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives – the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
• Replies: @nsa We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over....we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet. , @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4742-pearl-harbor-scapegoating-kimmel-and-short
Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erik Sieven says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT @Kirt Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
"Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil
• Replies: @Kirt "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Darin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 7:47 pm GMT • 100 Words
Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory
https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
• Replies: @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Dave37 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:01 pm GMT
Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.
• Replies: @Bill Jones So no freedom of speech in your little world then. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Conspiracy Theories Are True - PaulCraigRoberts.org says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:09 pm GMT • 100 Words
[ ] I described how the CIA flummoxed insouciant Americans. Ron Unz gives you the intellectual history behind of how two foreign intellectuals, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, shoved aside the truth-telling American intellectual, Charles Beard, who, like our founding fathers, had his finger on government's propensity to deceive the people with conspiracies. Popper said that conspiracies couldn't happen, and Strauss said they were necessary so that the government could pursue its agendas despite the public's opposition. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]
- art guerrilla says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
then why am i crying inside
- Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about ZionismI've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm GMT @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over .we have achieved full spectrum dominance and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
• Replies: @Jacques SheeteI don't think he really knew who he was writing for.Love it.My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return. , @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT
"Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart – smarter than you actually – do in fact believe just that.
• Replies: @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire). , @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jacques Sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
Love it.
My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.
Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery? , @Mr. Anon "Being smart has nothing to do with it."Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:12 pm GMT • 400 Words @Pat Casey
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning. , @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right.... , @5371 You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Mr. Anon "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
• Replies: @Ron UnzOr maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind...In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
So true!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT
A good book, BTW, is Robert Howse's Leo Strauss: Man of Peace . Howse is liberal, FWIW.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- ten miles says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm GMT
One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would our elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Kinda answers itself doesn't it?
- nsa says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm GMT
How could the godfather of neocon jooies have written so many great waltzes .like the angelic Blue Danube? You see how easy disinfo is for us here in Ft. Meade and Langley?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Konga says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
"Take your pick". I take your prick.
Do you think anyone would care/accept/believe if USSR did "reveal" the fakery? On the contrary, it would be a point in favour of the "reality" of the landing.
Sometimes "stupid conspiracy theories" deniers are just that: stupid deniers.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- RobinG says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 10:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Darin Another question to all conspirologists out there: what you think about Trump plant theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_plant_theory
https://www.facebook.com/ClintonTrumpConspiracy
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald, Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.
(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)
• Replies: @iffen just to give the illusion that there was some competitionI think she funded Bernie as well. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- map says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption that a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because of the need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the conspiracy falls apart.
The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is the start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies are simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is built-in because they are like-minded.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Kirt says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil
"probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"
Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Chuck says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:20 pm GMT @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
Why did the USSR stop at the 38th parallel upon American request?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT • 800 Words NEW! @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades
Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.
[MORE]
Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsFrom the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
- iffen says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:29 pm GMT @RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure in the primaries.
(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs. for the same reasons.)
just to give the illusion that there was some competition
I think she funded Bernie as well.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- The Alarmist says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-)
I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here .
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "
First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies
• Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT • 300 Words @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
• Replies: @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 [Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably, the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library), which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I. and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency" Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
• Replies: @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right .
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:50 am GMT • 200 Words
No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis-as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone-passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly-no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance. , @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes? , @Robbie Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
"...According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
"...Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778His 2013 paperback update:
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:04 am GMT @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.
Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz So, there is a counter example - an exception???Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies. , @Gene Tuttle I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era -- one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdfMain point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:14 am GMT @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
• Replies: @anonymous If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them -- or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine -- pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet -- zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany , @LondonBob Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new. , @Hippopotamusdrome There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:15 am GMT @Dave37 Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.
So no freedom of speech in your little world then.
• Replies: @Dave37 Sure, if I can have some revenge for annoying AHs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:44 am GMT • 200 Words @Darin Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
• Replies: @anonymousMy guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity ---While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security., @dahoit Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @landlubber
journalistic and sociological worksPravda.And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it. , @AnonCrimethink2016 Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's own conspiracy theory, that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two planes (not to mention Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day) does not hold up under any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry and physics can see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official explanation, but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never be clear exactly who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative are demonstrably false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking person considerable pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably followed in U.S. foreign policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about "How could such a vast conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for starters...) rather than engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness accounts that attest to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 am GMT • 300 Words @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesusStrauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.Nonsense.Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 ) , @Pat Casey Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander---the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves....how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece." Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that---he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT • 300 Words
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up.
Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention.
People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech.
The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ 0
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.
Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity -• Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsWhile holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.
Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.
They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT • 400 Words
Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
Hey Whorefinder, are you one of Cass Sunstein's boys , by any chance.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:43 am GMT • 100 Words @The Alarmist I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here ....
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration fading.How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why videotape technology took off in the early seventies ;)
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)
There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too - no compensation would fix that in 1969.
• Replies: @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT • 300 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )
• Replies: @Decius First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT @biz
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landingsActually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.
biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
• Replies: @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:31 am GMT • 100 Words @Rurik Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it...
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir.
Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
• Replies: @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you. , @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:32 am GMT
after snowden, every conspiracy theory got a 99% boost in credibility. he confirmed the big bad boogeymen watching and spying on us all.
nothing else is impossible, nothing. every theory is now possible, everything.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:55 am GMT @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.
• Replies: @Pat Casey Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down.... I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Decius says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words @SolontoCroesus
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.Nonsense.Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PBRedeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )
First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.
Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT • 200 Words @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them - or maybe they did. Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.
1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine - pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet - zionists planted in Germany and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine. Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- pyrrhus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT
The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed, although it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT • 1,000 Words @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander-the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves .how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"
What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
" Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.
That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."
Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that-he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Pat Casey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:18 am GMT • 100 Words @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.
Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down . I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:20 am GMT @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.
When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- dismasdolben says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT • 200 Words
My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still, despite all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in history books, as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their Jesuit confessors. It was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely riddled with moles who nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed to the public for maximum political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more terrorified, and, thus, more dependent upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot, Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser, and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but, still, to this day, the myth of conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic British history.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:31 am GMT @Decius Schmitt disagreed with you.
This way of arguing, too, is redolent of an academic personality cult, not of actual scholarship.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:19 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right....
Oops! Sorry but I'm sure the typis were obvious.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:27 am GMT • 100 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
• Replies: @whorefinder The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious---just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true---and I'm open to it being true---the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen. , @CanSpeccy I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
• Replies: @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- moneta says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:44 am GMT • 200 Words
The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
• Replies: @AnotherLover Agree.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.Take that weird moderation quirk! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled?
• Replies: @AnotherLover I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.Present company excluded, of course... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:59 am GMT • 100 Words @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
So, there is a counter example – an exception???
Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:20 am GMT @Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to.
I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade offs.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Robbie says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:22 am GMT • 900 Words @whorefinder No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where, why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive, means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense, but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered. No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA! ), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.
So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that Oswald killed Kennedy.
The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13
"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him, can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964, to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697
"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One manhttp://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
" According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
" Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic (also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,
LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778His 2013 paperback update:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1620876108
- Old fogey says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:28 am GMT @Laurel The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.
Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Gene Tuttle says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:29 am GMT • 100 Words @Bill Jones Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era - one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdfMain point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 12:11 pm GMT @CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
• Replies: @CanSpeccylol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsNo it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
- Moi says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz .
• Replies: @Rehmat Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Alfred1860 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT • 100 Words
I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.
• Replies: @NosytheDuke "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".Gerald Massey Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Some Important Historical Events Had Hidden Causes | We Seek the Truth! says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm GMT
[ ] Read the Whole Article [ ]
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.
https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/
The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters today.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self haters,as are the dissidents.
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:21 pm GMT @Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I was 12 and had the same feeling.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day.
And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress.
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
• Replies: @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 , @Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11 than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.
Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
• Replies: @utu "Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." - Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true.
- whorefinder says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.
That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious-just the SS screwing up big time. So even if it were true-and I'm open to it being true-the Oswald Deniers are far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/
.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
• Replies: @El Dato Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur. , @CanSpeccyThree things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.That was before the mainstream media Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments~ Buddha
- dahoit says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different under those 2 needs further education.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized.
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm GMT @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
• Replies: @Astuteobservor II wow, that video should be mandatory for every american. , @Wizard of Oz I love it! , @I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA What do you mean by debunking. It is in fact concisely and clearly explaining 9/11 Truth theories castigated as conspiracy theories by the criminal rulers. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words @dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true."Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." – Few days before that failed launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- LondonBob says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 5:51 pm GMT @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing new.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Abraham says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
How is this a problem?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Astuteobservor II says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
wow, that video should be mandatory for every american.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- zib says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study
Nice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- A
- El Dato says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually) as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- 5371 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are wrong that he is worth reading.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW! @Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.
Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:47 pm GMT @Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/.
.Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
That was before the mainstream media
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:49 pm GMT • 700 Words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture - music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton - the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used - I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min –> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism - what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs - that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?
usw
• Replies: @utu Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.He is really very good.
He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 8:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- WorkingClass says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT
The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Ron Unz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT NEW!
For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz RonYou may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which can be found here:
http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories , @Wizard of Oz International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article or editorial variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right". What is remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its condescending anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:04 pm GMT • 200 Words
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy–with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.
While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus"burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All CommentsThe good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes ... definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. ... The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."
When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman
The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.
• Replies: @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theoryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:43 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy--with impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook. The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect on its very face.
"burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsThe bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.
The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15 minutes definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon. He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up going through other parts of the bridge. The worst-case scenario was the whole section could fall."
When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Olorin says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 6, 2016 at 11:07 pm GMT • 200 Words @Anonymous The moon landings were likely faked. The Apollo footage was done through front screen projection. See Oleg Oleynik's work on this:
"A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images"
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
That's so 1990s.
Everybody knows that it's the MOON that's faked.
There isn't any. It's just a transverse parallax asynchronous stereoscopic projection onto the upper atmosphere by the Illuminati.
So-called lunar eclipses are their way of letting each other know there's going to be a pig roast on Jekyll Island.
Those so-called "stars" are just bits of light coming out of terrestrial volcanoes, shining off the troposphere.
We see more of them today because there are also lasers added. People realized something was up when some stars disappeared after Krakatoa blew up, so the powers that be had to work on an invention to replace the stars. They keep coming up with more and more of them–viz. Hubble Space Telescope. But in fact there is nothing but a void up there, and the earth is the center of it.
"Meteor showers" are just a clever animation. It's all just a ruse to hide the fact that there are underground polar military encampments.
There's also not really any such thing as penguins. They were genetically engineered to serve as diversions from the other stuff happening at the poles, because, for instance, people will watch cute penguin GIFs for an hour while the Illuminati move people and materiel in the polar background in plain view. But the "penguins" are an instrument of mind control that block perception.
http://imgur.com/gallery/Ebevb
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:08 am GMT • 100 Words @Boris
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunmanThe problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964 and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22conspiracy+theory%22&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20conspiracy%20theory%20%22%3B%2Cc0
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
• Replies: @Boris That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC. , @Mr. Anon So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:23 am GMT @John Jeremiah Smith
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less (and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation would fix that in 1969.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
• Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith@John Jeremiah SmithShucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUEFrankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:38 am GMT @SolontoCroesus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . . what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture, politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture -- music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile." Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton -- the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik . . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he woke up & recognized that he was being used -- I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min --> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing 34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish? Likewise, this term zionism -- what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you displace facts with manipulated beliefs -- that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought by the group, right?
usw
Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.
He is really very good.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- anti_republocrat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s ** t up.
• Agree: John Jeremiah Smith Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 2:33 am GMT • 200 Words @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:
1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control. By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 3:16 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with – wait for it – airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
• Replies: @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort. , @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? , @Jett Rucker I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire).
"Being smart has nothing to do with it."
Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Mr. Anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 am GMT @utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear explosion.
So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Nathan Hale says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT • 100 Words @Jason Liu Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.
Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT @Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.
"They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
Gerald Massey
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:49 am GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
[all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
• Replies: @John Jeremiah SmithIt was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:59 am GMT • 400 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen .. but .. I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
• Replies: @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
Frankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- John Jeremiah Smith says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
• Replies: @Miro23 There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." , @CalDre A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Buzz Cauldron says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words
Almost all of our fake world has the truth hidden in a way that keeps everyone arguing over one of two lies. Did we go to the moon? Yes, of course, and other places too. Just not with the technology and probably even the people we were deceived into thinking we did. The folks that did go were not Japanese tourists, capturing nearly every possible moment in film. They were in the most extreme life threatening situation of anyone in history, they weren't there to take pictures. So they faked a few, ok nearly all. It is obvious. A grade school student can see that. The simple use of stereo parallax proves this quite easily with nearly all the common moon photos.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
The government had no desire to show the Russians how we were getting there, or what we were doing there, nor did they want to show the public what could have and probably did turn into a horror story for many of the real astronauts. The secret space program was born, and it pretty quickly found that the moon is not what we think it is and has more in common with a star wars death star than a natural satellite. It was parked there, within human history. We suspected that all along. They were told to leave it alone, so they went to Mars. They can't even pretend to tell you or show you what is going on there, it would rip the foundational pillars out of from under all of human history and belief.We debate everything in this world with THIS or THAT, when the illusion is a cover for a horrifying truth, that even the few (people who the world doesn't even know are alive) who know the truth behind the curtain, truly, truly don't understand entirely. So what would you have them say?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Neil Sutherland says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
The American tradition of 'conspiracy theory', goes all the way back to America's founding, when the founding fathers wrote the Alien and Sedition Act, for fear of 'Jacobins' [jefferson and franklin would know, as they were in paris during and participants in the french revolution]. Jacobins were Masonic, or 'lluminati', and their continuous activities led to the 'Anti-Masonic' party. During Andrew Jackson's time, the Rothschild bankers continued to try to re-establish a 'central bank', and their non-stop conspiring eventually led to the Federal Reserve Act.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT
The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.
Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
• Replies: @Rurikand is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrinesome of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jett Rucker says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force. We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature.
I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic (into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion) as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Miro23 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm GMT • 200 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT • 400 Words @John Jeremiah Smith
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots down in Florida had problems with basic flying skillsLOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact (there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is entirely impossible .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm GMT • 800 Words @Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq.If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular but limited outrages.So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent – note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" – IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) – and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus? , @Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rehmat says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT • 300 Words @Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz....
Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.
On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/02/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-fund-holocaust-industry/
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Pat Casey
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:--William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981
https://www.quora.com/Did-William-Casey-CIA-Director-really-say-Well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-American-public-believes-is-false
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the picture. Where you wrote:
"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more? And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in good and hard.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm GMT @moneta The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are counterfieted to create debt.Agree.
Take that weird moderation quirk!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- AnotherLover says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby dissembled?
I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have the temerity to do so.
Present company excluded, of course
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jett Rucker The mother of all conspiracy theories is the Gas Chamber Libel against the German People.
Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine
some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that 'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined, at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe it all, or else!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/
• Agree: Bill Jones Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Ed Rankin says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT • 300 Words
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative, but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if in fact, it ever ceased.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Bill Jones says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT
A nice little piece on one of the players in the big conspiracy:
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-philip-zelikow/
- Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:29 pm GMT • 200 Words @Anonymous
I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon landing was a hoax.Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.
...
And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.
But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be more effective.
You apparently have trouble accepting an accomplished fact that contradicts your pathetic, childish idea of what is possible or was possible at that time.
You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it when I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was a real understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess now.
No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet you write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.
The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this garbage.
Pathetic.
For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.
Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies into the same mental swamp in the public mind.
This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 10:40 pm GMT @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.
Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus, when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies, not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam" on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God. Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice, when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect. And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11? Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the "elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight – or just one or two of them – knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float?
• Replies: @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm GMT @Buzz Mohawk You apparently have trouble accepting an accomplished fact that contradicts your pathetic, childish idea of what is possible or was possible at that time.
You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it when I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was a real understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess now.
No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet you write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.
The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this garbage.
Pathetic.
For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.
Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies into the same mental swamp in the public mind.
This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.
Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED?
• Replies: @Buzz Mohawk No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.I'm not just talking about Apollo now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CalDre says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 7, 2016 at 11:44 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists. (But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my FakeMarsLanding Inc float?
I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
• Replies: @NosytheDuke SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7 , @Wizard of Oz Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.
And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Dave37 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 1:13 am GMT @Bill Jones So no freedom of speech in your little world then.
Sure, if I can have some revenge for annoying AHs.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 2:27 am GMT @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence - originals, copies, backups - in one place? Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail. What would be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered why AB, the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups to be destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Buzz Mohawk says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:22 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED?
No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.
I'm not just talking about Apollo now.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree with - and you didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a sneering accusation that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would have shown confident insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the misuse of "protagonist". As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor "I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist in......[The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where does one put the accent on protagonist do you think to further the pretence that one is a classical scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks). Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Marie says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT • 100 Words
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:15 am GMT • 100 Words @Buzz Mohawk No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.
I'm not just talking about Apollo now.
Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree with – and you didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a sneering accusation that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would have shown confident insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the misuse of "protagonist". As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor "I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist in [The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where does one put the accent on protagonist do you think to further the pretence that one is a classical scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks).
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:38 am GMT • 100 Words @CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, UA 93?
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the "Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.
Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.
And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyProof? Evidence?Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:53 am GMT • 100 Words @NosytheDuke SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7
That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence – originals, copies, backups – in one place? Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail. What would be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered why AB, the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups to be destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory".
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:11 am GMT • 200 Words @CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it – or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:45 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.
Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with the conspiracy versions.
And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if it was intended for WTC 7.
Proof? Evidence?
Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.
In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility. , @Wizard of Oz And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook for a generalised rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup, that needed to be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive raised by supposing WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT
By the looks of thsee incredibly stupid comments on 9/11 and the Holocaust, it seems doubtful that the CIA would need to do anything more than accurately describe the fringe theories currently in circulation.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to be destroyed of which there were no copies.
WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.
But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?
True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.
Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT • 200 Words
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places. And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked it!"
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.
"There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"
Allow me to present a third alternative:
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.
See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyHey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.
Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- bunga says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 3:11 pm GMT • 100 Words
The turning point was the beheadings last month of two US journalists by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isis. Once videos of their killings were posted on the internet by Isis, their deaths amounted to virtual public executions.
Bill McInturff, a Republican-aligned pollster who along with a Democratic colleague conducts the closely watched Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, said the change in public opinion had been "sudden". That poll showed 61 per cent of respondents thought military action against Isis was in America's national interest." – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/arabs-rouhani-matthews/#sthash.xX4Cnzub.dpufDo American warmongers need a theory? Anything will do. The sheeple will pass flatulence and think they are clearing the air .
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 4:38 pm GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.
But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority who believe the official lies?True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.
I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.
It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas.
• Replies: @CanSpeccyI was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle blackBut you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:12 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Proof? Evidence?Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.
In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyFortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it..."
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Proof? Evidence?Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
Here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-did-the-us-plan-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-in-the-early-1960s/#comment-1532488
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook for a generalised rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup, that needed to be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive raised by supposing WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.
It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating cogently reasoned ideas.
I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black
But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.
As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ?
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyAre you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one..."
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
I love it!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of Oz Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you quoting yourself.
In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.
You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno ) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.
TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it "
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm GMT • 600 Words @Boris
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places. And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked it!"So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.
"There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"
Allow me to present a third alternative:
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.
See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
[MORE]
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?
As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.
Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE. • Replies: @Boris
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.
*I am not actually looking forward to this. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT • 200 Words @CanSpeccy
I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle blackBut you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no logical basis to your claim.As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys ?
Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?
As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.
He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one "
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people.
• Replies: @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence and civility.TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable of it..."
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid conceding that point.
Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.
A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Conspiracy Theories Are True | Bill Totten's Weblog says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT
[ ] {2} http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]
- ogunsiron says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.
In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
--
The flat earth guys might beat them to it.
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 11:12 pm GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers. That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned videos?As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence no matter how convincing and authoritative.You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down. Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked into this knows that.
Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE.
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.
I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.
[MORE]
*I am not actually looking forward to this.• Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 8, 2016 at 11:49 pm GMT
1. Demand evidence.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
2. Call people "shit eaters" until they get sick of you and leave.
3. Declare victory!
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:05 am GMT @Jonathan Revusky
Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia. A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll try this one..."
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion, I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard to fathom the psychology of some people.
Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyOh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron...
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe it is true. , @NosytheDuke The Wiz is a fraud and a troll. All puffery and no pastry. Not worth your time. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- BobFromTheHills says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:31 am GMT • 300 Words
We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court? A crime occurs, but the life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those situations, if the crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation and issues a report which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.
We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both cases, the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross examination. Just a report.
And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.
But why?
Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states evidence. The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a court trial. Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people possessing relevant competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?
Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture the perceptions it wants.
Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through with a cross examination.
If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyWe accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court.Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever subjected to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from a plane and therefore it's true.Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that whatever Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected "experts" saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty of perjury or anything. And again, no cross-examination....
So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he made this happen.
Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report... It always boils down to the notion that the government story is true because it's the government story.
I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence" is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination... just hearsay...
And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyoneWell, yeah... actually, in these Deep State operations, the patsies are pretty much invariably killed. And then, of course, the government can claim whatever it wants basically. That's how it works... Of course... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 12:49 am GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.
A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility by mocking it.
Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.
• Replies: @CanSpeccyI don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions.Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical channel is exposed.Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower. Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers.
Among the best authorities on thermite is the National Institute of Standards, or NIST, the non-governmental body hired to "explain" the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. In the past, NIST worked closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on the development of explosive nanothermites .
Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion of three WTC buildings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 700 Words @Boris
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on 9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes. Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and nukes and on and on and on.
*I am not actually looking forward to this.9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?
In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
• Replies: @BorisHey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface. , @Incitatus "The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:05 am GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskySo you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:22 am GMT • 300 Words @BobFromTheHills We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court? A crime occurs, but the life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those situations, if the crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation and issues a report which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.
We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both cases, the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross examination. Just a report.
And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.
But why?
Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states evidence. The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a court trial. Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people possessing relevant competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?
Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture the perceptions it wants.
Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through with a cross examination.
If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?
We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime and the case goes to court.
Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever subjected to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from a plane and therefore it's true.
Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that whatever Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected "experts" saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty of perjury or anything. And again, no cross-examination .
So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he made this happen.
Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report It always boils down to the notion that the government story is true because it's the government story.
I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence" is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination just hearsay
And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the need to share the evidence with anyone
Well, yeah actually, in these Deep State operations, the patsies are pretty much invariably killed. And then, of course, the government can claim whatever it wants basically. That's how it works Of course
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:36 am GMT • 100 Words @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.
Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe it is true.
• Replies: @CanSpeccyI mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.But that's the thing. That's how truth is defined in this politically correct age. So it's by definition, the government story is proof of the government story.George Orwell unfortunately mis-dated his book 1984 , he was about 20 years too soon. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT • 900 Words @Boris
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even.A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.
In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.
But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.
As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered.
• Replies: @BorisYou have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies. I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the ticketsAnd now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof.The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME. 9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you.Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure, maybe the shape-shifters did all that.Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth.Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart--for once.I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your posts are extremely light on evidence. , @Rurik Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 5:38 am GMT @CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.
The Wiz is a fraud and a troll. All puffery and no pastry. Not worth your time.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 7:22 am GMT @exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.
There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:01 am GMT • 100 Words @Darin Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
The fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three cruisers and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face of aircraft. Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- James Charles says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:16 am GMT @Pat Casey
Nothing is more convincing though than the clear discomfort of the three astronauts on what would normally be an occasion to celebrate.I know what you mean. I can but believe that you can always trust a tell. For example, this is a hell of a story:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FyONXh22M
If that guy is lying, he deserves an academy award. At one point he mentions Ft. Belvoir "in Maryland." Well Ft. Belvoir is in Virginia, and that small mistake strikes me as one he would only make if he was telling the truth. The guy has lots of tells like that that you can trust, I trust.
Is this a conspiracy?
U.F.O DISCLOSURE PROJECT -FULL VERSION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkswXVmG4xM
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location, for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream explanations are not.
the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon
It could also be a mirror on the roof of an unmanned probe.
• Replies: @biz No it couldn't. If so, it would be orbiting the moon and its location, not to mention the measured distance to it, would be changing constantly. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" – The Unz Review | The Center of the Decentralized says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:34 am GMT
[ ] Source: American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" – The Unz Review [ ]
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 1:27 pm GMT • 400 Words @Jonathan Revusky
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered.
You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies. I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets
And now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof.
The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME. 9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you.
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure, maybe the shape-shifters did all that.
Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth.
Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart–for once.
I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your posts are extremely light on evidence.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyThis is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.No, that is 180 degrees from the way things do work. If you say these guys committed the crime, the onus is on you to say what the evidence is. In a trial, it is the prosecution that must prove its case. All a defense lawyer has to do is show that the prosecution has not proven the guilt of his client. That's it.But I've been there and done that and this is just typical shit eater stuff. The shit eater always tells you that the onus is on you to prove something to him. No, if you say these guys committed this crime, OBVIOUSLY the onus is on you to prove it.
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy. So, logically, there's no getting around this: you're tacitly saying that there is overwhelming evidence for the story. There must be, because you're saying that the people who doubt the story are obviously crazy.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence. Then you try to tell me that asking for the evidence is an illegitimate trick! It's so ridiculous it's hilarious, but you're not even the first person to say that to me. At least two or three other shit eaters have told me over the past year that my asking for evidence is a "cheap debating trick" or something like that! LOL.
Finally, what you've come up with as "evidence"is just such an amazing bunch of crap, frankly. Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
But the thing is that you don't even understand that the evidence you produce cannot be equally consistent with the person being a patsy as actually having done it! That a plane ticket was purchased in somebody's name. Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime. In any case, it's not even proof that the person even boarded the plane! I could go online and buy a plane ticket in anybody's name to frame the person for a crime....
Just like I could put out a video saying I somehow made the planes fly into the buildings...
This is the kind of pathetic crap that you are coming up with when I ask you to outline the strongest evidence available!
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones.As I said before, it's just hearsay. Besides, check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usaMohammed Atta's father says he got a phone call from his son the a day AFTER 9/11.
"My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that."I guess you don't think that is true Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call, no?
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed.Goof grief. It is such a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. You guys always try to lower the bar to a ridiculously level. Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed! Guns existed in 1963. Therefore Oswald got a gun and shot Kennedy.Anyway, the problem here is that they first tried to claim that the calls were made from cell phones and then, when it seemed apparent that the calls were not technically possible, said it came from the seat-back phones. Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky. Regardless, even if the seat-back phones were there on all the planes in question, and thus, the calls were technically possible, that certainly does not prove that the story is true. You're so many degrees away from providing anything that resembles proof of the story!
Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible,Hey, shit eater, you should read what I wrote. I said that I doubted that they were possible. That means I don't know for absolutely sure. Simply demonstrating that the phone calls were possible is not proof that they really happened. A good reference on this is an article by David Ray Griffin from a few years back on this phone calls topic:http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924
DRG studies the various claims and the way the story changed and all the problems with it, and based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true. Obviously, they would need to claim that these phone calls happened in order to establish the official story. So we're really just about back to the notion that the official story is proof of the official story.
and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse?Well, the reason you say that is because, of course, you've never studied the question. No, in fact, there is really very little "nuance" to the question. What they are saying happened is simply physically impossible. All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant. There is no way that this can result from fires spreading in an uncontrolled manner. At best, you would get very asymmetrical damage. The straight-down implosion that you see with WTC7 must be engineered. It does not take more than half a day on the internet contrasting the various arguments and considering them to realize this. It really just does not.I pointedly asked you what 9/11 Truth material you were familiar with. I specifically asked you whether you had ever read anything by David Ray Griffin or Webster Tarpley, or looked at any of the material on http://ae911truth.org
You did not answer the question. I infer that this means the answer is no. It's an easy to conclusion to draw because you just don't really know what you're talking about. You don't even know what the basic parameters of the debate are.
This is a point that one always reaches when debating with a shit eater. It begins to dawn on the shit eater that he really does not know WTF he is talking about and that he is out of his depth intellectually. So you have a fork in the road at this point. You can amp up all the insults, "conspiracy theorist nya nya". Or you can just walk away. Whatever. But go get educated. Seriously. Everybody can see that you don't know what you're talking. You've never studied the question and you're just making an ass of yourself. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the crime! And the same applies here.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc.But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website.Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are an adherent.I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof. And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition" there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for any.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply impossible.A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane. They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the same split second. That has to be engineered.
Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else.
• Replies: @CanSpeccyTo doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that).Well if you're earnest enough about it, they'll probably put you in a mental hospital, which, as the US Government converges on the Stalinist model during the forthcoming Hillary Administration, is likely how they'll deal with 9/11 Truthers - to the sound of cheerful cackling from the likes of the Wiz. , @Jonathan RevuskyI see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.are their any who are sincerely duped?
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay, let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane, how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it. , @Jonathan Revusky
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.Yeah, it's the same kind of thing. I'm actually writing an essay about these sorts of issues because it finally occurred to me that this is exactly like religious fundamentalism. You ask somebody what the proof of some bible story is and the answer is that it's in the bible.Well, what's the difference between the two things in essence? As far as I can see, the important difference is that it doesn't really matter whether Moses shook a stick and caused the Red Sea to part. Who cares whether somebody believes this really happened or not? But believing that uncontrolled fires can cause a steel-framed building to collapse in a perfectly symmetrical manner -- this is just as crazy and has far more dangerous consequence when people believe this kind of shit.
But as regards this Ursula Haverbeck matter, the German people must really be so mentally colonized at this point to put up with this shit, putting 87 year old ladies in prison for thought crimes.
There is some really weird shit going on, you know. Have you seen this whole "burkini" business in France? There are all these localities on the Mediterranean coast in France that are fining Muslim women for NOT showing enough skin on the beach!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/28/french-mayors-burkini-ban-court-ruling
Think about that... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron...
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe it is true.I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof of the government story.
But that's the thing. That's how truth is defined in this politically correct age. So it's by definition, the government story is proof of the government story.
George Orwell unfortunately mis-dated his book 1984 , he was about 20 years too soon.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of Oz Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.
I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions.
Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical channel is exposed.
Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower. Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers.
Among the best authorities on thermite is the National Institute of Standards, or NIST, the non-governmental body hired to "explain" the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. In the past, NIST worked closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on the development of explosive nanothermites .
Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion of three WTC buildings.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz The recent doco about the American chemist and Norwegian metallurgist who sought to correct the official version by reference to aluminium as sn explosive hypothesised that it was molten aluminium flowing down into pools of water that explained the reported explosive sounds. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that).
Well if you're earnest enough about it, they'll probably put you in a mental hospital, which, as the US Government converges on the Stalinist model during the forthcoming Hillary Administration, is likely how they'll deal with 9/11 Truthers - to the sound of cheerful cackling from the likes of the Wiz.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 6:46 pm GMT • 1,200 Words @Boris
You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies. I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the ticketsAnd now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based on some story with this level of proof.The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME. 9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone call. And that's proof. For you.Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure, maybe the shape-shifters did all that.Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth.Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart--for once.I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your posts are extremely light on evidence.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
No, that is 180 degrees from the way things do work. If you say these guys committed the crime, the onus is on you to say what the evidence is. In a trial, it is the prosecution that must prove its case. All a defense lawyer has to do is show that the prosecution has not proven the guilt of his client. That's it.
But I've been there and done that and this is just typical shit eater stuff. The shit eater always tells you that the onus is on you to prove something to him. No, if you say these guys committed this crime, OBVIOUSLY the onus is on you to prove it.
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy. So, logically, there's no getting around this: you're tacitly saying that there is overwhelming evidence for the story. There must be, because you're saying that the people who doubt the story are obviously crazy.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence. Then you try to tell me that asking for the evidence is an illegitimate trick! It's so ridiculous it's hilarious, but you're not even the first person to say that to me. At least two or three other shit eaters have told me over the past year that my asking for evidence is a "cheap debating trick" or something like that! LOL.
Finally, what you've come up with as "evidence"is just such an amazing bunch of crap, frankly. Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
But the thing is that you don't even understand that the evidence you produce cannot be equally consistent with the person being a patsy as actually having done it! That a plane ticket was purchased in somebody's name. Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime. In any case, it's not even proof that the person even boarded the plane! I could go online and buy a plane ticket in anybody's name to frame the person for a crime .
Just like I could put out a video saying I somehow made the planes fly into the buildings
This is the kind of pathetic crap that you are coming up with when I ask you to outline the strongest evidence available!
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls from loved ones.
As I said before, it's just hearsay. Besides, check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa
Mohammed Atta's father says he got a phone call from his son the a day AFTER 9/11.
"My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that."
I guess you don't think that is true Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call, no?
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed.
Goof grief. It is such a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. You guys always try to lower the bar to a ridiculously level. Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed! Guns existed in 1963. Therefore Oswald got a gun and shot Kennedy.
Anyway, the problem here is that they first tried to claim that the calls were made from cell phones and then, when it seemed apparent that the calls were not technically possible, said it came from the seat-back phones. Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky. Regardless, even if the seat-back phones were there on all the planes in question, and thus, the calls were technically possible, that certainly does not prove that the story is true. You're so many degrees away from providing anything that resembles proof of the story!
Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible,
Hey, shit eater, you should read what I wrote. I said that I doubted that they were possible. That means I don't know for absolutely sure. Simply demonstrating that the phone calls were possible is not proof that they really happened. A good reference on this is an article by David Ray Griffin from a few years back on this phone calls topic:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924
DRG studies the various claims and the way the story changed and all the problems with it, and based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true. Obviously, they would need to claim that these phone calls happened in order to establish the official story. So we're really just about back to the notion that the official story is proof of the official story.
and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a building collapse?
Well, the reason you say that is because, of course, you've never studied the question. No, in fact, there is really very little "nuance" to the question. What they are saying happened is simply physically impossible. All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant. There is no way that this can result from fires spreading in an uncontrolled manner. At best, you would get very asymmetrical damage. The straight-down implosion that you see with WTC7 must be engineered. It does not take more than half a day on the internet contrasting the various arguments and considering them to realize this. It really just does not.
I pointedly asked you what 9/11 Truth material you were familiar with. I specifically asked you whether you had ever read anything by David Ray Griffin or Webster Tarpley, or looked at any of the material on http://ae911truth.org
You did not answer the question. I infer that this means the answer is no. It's an easy to conclusion to draw because you just don't really know what you're talking about. You don't even know what the basic parameters of the debate are.
This is a point that one always reaches when debating with a shit eater. It begins to dawn on the shit eater that he really does not know WTF he is talking about and that he is out of his depth intellectually. So you have a fork in the road at this point. You can amp up all the insults, "conspiracy theorist nya nya". Or you can just walk away. Whatever. But go get educated. Seriously. Everybody can see that you don't know what you're talking. You've never studied the question and you're just making an ass of yourself.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT • 400 Words @Rurik Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else.
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay, let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane, how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is When you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
• Replies: @Jonathan Revuskythe evidence is on you to prove something.I meant: the onus is on you to prove something. Finally, I guess they go through all these various sophomoric debating tricks because that's what they've got. There is no "proof" of the official 9/11 story that withstands the laugh test, so they always end up falling back on the same BS, the story is proof of the story, the onus is on you to prove something to them blah blah... Same old, same old. It's a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. , @BorisThis Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.This is an obvious fucking lie.You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc."Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
Dishonest or stupid? My answer--both.
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 7:07 pm GMT • 200 Words @Rurik Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson, the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/14/nazi-grandma/75773774/her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative , is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence. To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all supposed to fall in line. Or else.
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
Yeah, it's the same kind of thing. I'm actually writing an essay about these sorts of issues because it finally occurred to me that this is exactly like religious fundamentalism. You ask somebody what the proof of some bible story is and the answer is that it's in the bible.
Well, what's the difference between the two things in essence? As far as I can see, the important difference is that it doesn't really matter whether Moses shook a stick and caused the Red Sea to part. Who cares whether somebody believes this really happened or not? But believing that uncontrolled fires can cause a steel-framed building to collapse in a perfectly symmetrical manner - this is just as crazy and has far more dangerous consequence when people believe this kind of shit.
But as regards this Ursula Haverbeck matter, the German people must really be so mentally colonized at this point to put up with this shit, putting 87 year old ladies in prison for thought crimes.
There is some really weird shit going on, you know. Have you seen this whole "burkini" business in France? There are all these localities on the Mediterranean coast in France that are fining Muslim women for NOT showing enough skin on the beach!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/28/french-mayors-burkini-ban-court-ruling
Think about that
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 7:12 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.are their any who are sincerely duped?
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay, let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane, how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
the evidence is on you to prove something.
I meant: the onus is on you to prove something. Finally, I guess they go through all these various sophomoric debating tricks because that's what they've got. There is no "proof" of the official 9/11 story that withstands the laugh test, so they always end up falling back on the same BS, the story is proof of the story, the onus is on you to prove something to them blah blah Same old, same old. It's a waste of time to debate with a shit eater.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 7:21 pm GMT • 100 Words @Darin Yes, why?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_MainilaIn none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point?
Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80% of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess, there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly mobilize your forces.
3000 people is really just peanuts on a national level. If the result is that you get all this outrage and suddenly the majority of the population is screaming for war, well that could be well worth it.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- biz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 8:07 pm GMT @Hippopotamusdrome
It could also be a mirror on the roof of an unmanned probe.
the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon
No it couldn't. If so, it would be orbiting the moon and its location, not to mention the measured distance to it, would be changing constantly.
• Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome It would be a probe that would land on the surface, like the russian Luna. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 9:35 pm GMT • 700 Words
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy.
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical. You are absolutely positive that the official story is false. You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence.
Are you an actual child? You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there. Why are you whining that no one will show you the evidence when it is easily available? It's bizarre.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
What? You make no sense at all. Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence. No one ever argued that it was the only piece of evidence.
Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime.
It's totally consistent with my alien shape-shifter theory too. So what? It doesn't magically become evidence for YOUR theory.
As I said before, it's just hearsay.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist. It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Renee_May_calls
Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call, no?
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory. What reason would a dozen family members have to lie? There are also records. And recordings of some of the calls.
[MORE]
Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed!
Holy shit, you've reached a new level of stupid. The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong. Hey, you don't want obvious pieces of evidence explained to you? Then don't make idiotic claims.
Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true.
Amazing. You swallow that article without questioning it at all. I'm sure the first reports were of "cell phones"–since that's what people would be familiar with. The documentation is clear.
All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant.
The NIST describes the process:
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.
Sounds plausible to me.
No I know that your supersmart buddies have written gobs of text about how this is impossible and how all the families of the dead who got phone calls on 9/11 were lying liars who eat babies, but no one is listening. Do you understand that? You truthers will always be reviled in polite society. You think it's because everyone else is a lizard person, but it's you. • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical. You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain... could you clarify your position now? You're starting to sound really wishy washy.Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is... it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis -- that the official story is simply not physically possible.
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article: http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked. It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite murky. There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Renee_May_calls
http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-what-the-telephone-records-reveal-about-calls-from-aa-flight-77-did-barbara-olson-attempt-any-calls-at-all/26594
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight in question...
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty strong reasons to lie too!
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think the debate is basically over.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what you want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't support what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very clear at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane getting hijacked.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time, for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American Airlines 767's in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing 767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these phone calls."
Oh, and even then, how that gets you to the bearded guy in Afghanistan.... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 9:46 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.are their any who are sincerely duped?
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay, let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane, how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc."Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
Dishonest or stupid? My answer–both.
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
• Replies: @Jonathan Revusky(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty, and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 11:08 pm GMT • 500 Words
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc."Well, you were offering this as an element of proof, among other things, but NONE of the things that you are as offering as proof really constitute a shred of evidence that Atta hijacked any plane. It just doesn't.
Everything you are offering as proof is exactly as consistent with him being a patsy who was framed as being an actual hijacker.
Now, as for accusing other people of dishonesty, you have said all these disparaging things about "conspiracy theorists" and it being a "circle jerk" among other pejorative labels. At this point, I have asked you a couple of times what 9/11 Truth literature you have actually read - David Ray Griffin? Tarpley? The material from AE911Truth? The fact that you never answer the question is basically an answer.
Clearly, you have not read any of it! You talk disparagingly about these "crazy conspiracy theorists" but you don't even know what arguments any of them have made, because you have not read any of it! I can tell you haven't. And that is really just completely deplorable and dishonest.
But I am kinda used to it. It's just typical shit eater behavior.
Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
I requested proof and that was one of various elements of proof that you presented. Okay, I guess now you realize that was a brain fart and want to retract the claim that this is proof of any sort. Fine. Look, I'll throw you a bone. I'll even pretend that you never said that this was proof. Okay, fine, what do I care? You never said that.
But I asked you: What is the strongest evidence available for the U.S. government story? I mean, specifically, within a few weeks of the 9/11 event, a whole theater of war was launched in Central Asia based on this whole tale that this was a terrorist plot that somehow originated in Afghanistan. Fifteen years later and there are still G.I.'s in Afghanistan and they're spending billions of dollars there every month probably. We really need to know what is the proof for this story that was the basis for all this! Despite your claims otherwise, this is a perfectly legitimate question. Can you shed any light on this?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 9, 2016 at 11:14 pm GMT • 300 Words @Jonathan Revusky
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only be achieved via controlled demolition.
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these "experts"?You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are fake.Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have any evidence backing them up.In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
"The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."
None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know.
• Replies: @RurikI'm on the fence. I'd really like to know.you can start herehttp://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
go to the featured article on page 21
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven didn't implode into its basement because of office fires.
from there, you go down the rabbit hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VtozvvG4c Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 12:13 am GMT • 100 Words
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence. One of many. You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question. It's all strong. The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty clear.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me know.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyOh, I see, here we are, the Monty Python argument shop skit approach to a discussion now. "No, that's not evidence." "It is." "It's not."I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.It's a piece of evidence.
You always reach this point when you debate with a shit eater. They just start adamantly repeating whatever bullshit. It's like you have to tell them for the umpteenth time: " No, this turd you have just regurgitated yet again is not chocolate mousse. "
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Basically, you're saying that there is some paper record that a plane ticket was purchased in Atta's name. Yeah, okay, so what? This is not even proof that Atta himself purchased the ticket. I could purchase a plane ticket in somebody's name without them even knowing about it. That a person possesses a valid ticket, that a ticket was issued in somebody's name, that's not proof that they ever got on the plane. And even then, that somebody was on the plane is not proof that he hijacked it.
The purchase of the ticket is something that is so many degrees removed from being hard evidence of anything, it is hard to see how somebody could try to make that claim. But this really brings us to the core of the shit eater mentality.
You see, the reason that you present this kind of thing as evidence is that you've never really thought about this question -- I mean the question what would constitute evidence. You never thought about it because you see no need. "It's the official story, I heard it on the TeeVee, therefore it's true."
That is how a shit eater reasons.
So it's a waste of time to try to have a "debate" with a shit eater because the shit eater does not even understand the basic parameters of a debate, what would constitute evidence and so forth.
You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question.Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is stupid because... well, it's the official story, therefore it's true. That's how a shit eater thinks. "Hey, this is the official bullshit. Yum yum."
Of course, if you're not a shit eater, then if they tell you that somebody committed whatever crime, the natural question is what is the strongest evidence available. And you have to think about whether what they are presenting to you as "evidence" really is, or how strong it is.
Well, this is all beg the question stuff. The shit eater's "proof" of the story invariably is based on assuming the story. "The mastermind, the hijackers..." You assume that which needs to be demonstrated.
The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty clear.Most of this Al Qaeda narrative was established by torturing people, in particular, one poor wretch by the name of Abu Zubaydah, in Guantanamo bay. I referenced one article that is, I think, a must-read (if you really are interested in the topic, that is) here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Now, regarding for example, the record of the "movements" of an alleged hijacker, like Atta, I looked for the airport surveillance video you mentioned and it's just a joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F249r7TaBo
That's a minute and a half and the narrator analyzes what is being presented as "proof" here. It's just a total joke.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me know.Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway. Face it, dude, you're a shit eater. A clinical case.The evidence that these people were patsies is really pretty glaring. Take the case of Hani Hanjour, who supposedly flew some sort of 270 degree sloping descent maneuver to hit the Pentagon, some feat of flying that professional pilots have said they could not execute. This guy Hani was up in some single-engine plane with a flight instructor once and the guy was so terrible (probably mostly because he didn't really know English and didn't understand anything the instructor was saying) that they got back on the ground and the instructor said never again!
There is a pattern here where anybody who really had any contact with any of these people saw that they were bumbling incompetents who couldn't carry out an operation like this. When you do minimal research on this and other similar events, the fact that the people they are pinning this on are just patsies -- this is just glaring, it's right in your face. Lee Harvey Oswald back when, or more recently, these Arab ethnics in France that they say did these various things.... the fact that these people are patsies is just right in front of one's nose when you study these events even minimally.
But when you talk with a shit eater, it's just like: "Oh, but that's the official story. It must be true! You're a conspiracy theorist, nya nya!"
"Of course Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a ticket, dammit!!! What more proof do you need???!!!!""
This is where you always end up when you debate a shit eater. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 12:19 am GMT • 1,400 Words @Boris
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy.I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical. You are absolutely positive that the official story is false. You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence.Are you an actual child? You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there. Why are you whining that no one will show you the evidence when it is easily available? It's bizarre.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?What? You make no sense at all. Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence. No one ever argued that it was the only piece of evidence.Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime.It's totally consistent with my alien shape-shifter theory too. So what? It doesn't magically become evidence for YOUR theory.As I said before, it's just hearsay.It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist. It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Renee_May_calls
Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call, no?Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie--to protect his son's memory. What reason would a dozen family members have to lie? There are also records. And recordings of some of the calls.
Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed!Holy shit, you've reached a new level of stupid. The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong. Hey, you don't want obvious pieces of evidence explained to you? Then don't make idiotic claims.Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky.It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true.Amazing. You swallow that article without questioning it at all. I'm sure the first reports were of "cell phones"--since that's what people would be familiar with. The documentation is clear.All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant.The NIST describes the process:The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.Sounds plausible to me.No I know that your supersmart buddies have written gobs of text about how this is impossible and how all the families of the dead who got phone calls on 9/11 were lying liars who eat babies, but no one is listening. Do you understand that? You truthers will always be reviled in polite society. You think it's because everyone else is a lizard person, but it's you.
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical. You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.
Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain could you clarify your position now? You're starting to sound really wishy washy.
Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story is simply not physically possible.
But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article: http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.
What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.
Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
[MORE]
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked. It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:
Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite murky. There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight in question
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty strong reasons to lie too!
It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think the debate is basically over.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what you want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't support what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very clear at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane getting hijacked.
Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time, for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American Airlines 767′s in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing 767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these phone calls."
Oh, and even then, how that gets you to the bearded guy in Afghanistan . • Replies: @Incitatus "...you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story is simply not physically possible."
Great point! 2700! Something must be fishy.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers, but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects or engineers). It gets even better - many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada, Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth. If the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist, bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
ae911truth? Maybe Richard Gage enjoys having a nice tax-exempt slush fund for travel and lecture fees. Maybe he enjoys gadfly celebrity his practice never delivered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hugh Steadman says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 12:39 am GMT • 100 Words
This article which I read this morning was perfectly in accord with the blog I posted on http://www.khakispecs.com this morning. http://www.khakispecs.com/?p=2593
I have a friend and business partner in NZ, Harmon Wilfred, who is stateless as a result of blowing the whistle on the Clintons. His information, available in this blog, could blow the Clinton Foundation out of the water – but no one dare touch such a true conspiracy theory.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 12:58 am GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus "The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."
None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know.
I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know.
you can start here
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
go to the featured article on page 21
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven didn't implode into its basement because of office fires.
from there, you go down the rabbit hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VtozvvG4c
• Replies: @Incitatus I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth etc). Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable to venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is all very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need not believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however, coughs up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer YouTube, ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers at all. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 1:16 am GMT • 200 Words
Boris and Incitatus,
I want you to know that Revusky loves you both, owing to your kind extension to him, the opportunity to partake of his daily bread – 9/11 "truth". Poor chap's been through a bit of a lean period lately; breadwise that is.I'd suggest a little caution nevertheless . You see, he repeatedly calls his interlocutors, "shit-eaters", a term he intends entirely as a fraternal invitation to a select club, of which, the dinner menu is limited, noxious and, -not to put too fine a point on it – unnatural. But of course he is entitled to his preferences, this being the day and age of inclusiveness and all that, I say to each his own.
Btw he adores infinite reduction loops, and hopes one day to set foot on the moon. In the meantime do remind him – the dosage is twice daily, ideally on an empty stomach.
• Replies: @Incitatus Sam,Enjoyed your advice, which I take to heart.
I too noted JR's fixation with coprophagia. I put it down to ecological pragmatism on his part. He produces such immense quantities of the product, he suggestively hopes others will consume it. He must be in constant danger of exploding.
Honoré de Balzac had a great observation on conspracists:
"[they] passed sovereign judgment on society the more readily because of the inferiority of their own status, for unappreciated men make up for their lowly position by the disdainful eye they cast upon the world." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- WowJustWow says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?
Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been for nothing.
I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it.
• Replies: @ErebusIf you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible.Type "no planes 9/11" into youtube for hints on how hijacking no planes at all is even more sensible. Some of the videos make better cases than others, but a half dozen or so appear conclusive. So sensible is the no planes theory, that one wonders why the plotters wouldn't have thought of it.
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Hippopotamusdrome says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 3:36 am GMT @biz No it couldn't. If so, it would be orbiting the moon and its location, not to mention the measured distance to it, would be changing constantly.
It would be a probe that would land on the surface, like the russian Luna.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 3:42 am GMT
NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY 9/11 'HIJACKERS' BOARDED ANY PLANES
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/hijackers-did-not-board-planes/
- Zzz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 4:04 am GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz Are you presuming that it should be easy to travel over the entire moon surface and easily arrive at a precisely defined point - and that where the flags are is such a point?
Actually it is. Relatively easy. Time and money consuming but not hard, at least compare to put robot on mars. And you not need to travel over entire surface, you can just land robot at about same place. But such experiment is pointless because have little science value and any evidence from it can be called fake(or be faked)
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:03 am GMT • 900 Words @Boris
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.It's a piece of evidence. One of many. You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question. It's all strong. The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty clear.Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me know.
I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence.
Oh, I see, here we are, the Monty Python argument shop skit approach to a discussion now. "No, that's not evidence." "It is." "It's not."
You always reach this point when you debate with a shit eater. They just start adamantly repeating whatever bullshit. It's like you have to tell them for the umpteenth time: " No, this turd you have just regurgitated yet again is not chocolate mousse. "
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Basically, you're saying that there is some paper record that a plane ticket was purchased in Atta's name. Yeah, okay, so what? This is not even proof that Atta himself purchased the ticket. I could purchase a plane ticket in somebody's name without them even knowing about it. That a person possesses a valid ticket, that a ticket was issued in somebody's name, that's not proof that they ever got on the plane. And even then, that somebody was on the plane is not proof that he hijacked it.
The purchase of the ticket is something that is so many degrees removed from being hard evidence of anything, it is hard to see how somebody could try to make that claim. But this really brings us to the core of the shit eater mentality.
You see, the reason that you present this kind of thing as evidence is that you've never really thought about this question - I mean the question what would constitute evidence. You never thought about it because you see no need. "It's the official story, I heard it on the TeeVee, therefore it's true."
That is how a shit eater reasons.
So it's a waste of time to try to have a "debate" with a shit eater because the shit eater does not even understand the basic parameters of a debate, what would constitute evidence and so forth.
You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question.
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is stupid because well, it's the official story, therefore it's true. That's how a shit eater thinks. "Hey, this is the official bullshit. Yum yum."
Of course, if you're not a shit eater, then if they tell you that somebody committed whatever crime, the natural question is what is the strongest evidence available. And you have to think about whether what they are presenting to you as "evidence" really is, or how strong it is.
The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty clear.
Well, this is all beg the question stuff. The shit eater's "proof" of the story invariably is based on assuming the story. "The mastermind, the hijackers " You assume that which needs to be demonstrated.
Most of this Al Qaeda narrative was established by torturing people, in particular, one poor wretch by the name of Abu Zubaydah, in Guantanamo bay. I referenced one article that is, I think, a must-read (if you really are interested in the topic, that is) here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Now, regarding for example, the record of the "movements" of an alleged hijacker, like Atta, I looked for the airport surveillance video you mentioned and it's just a joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F249r7TaBo
That's a minute and a half and the narrator analyzes what is being presented as "proof" here. It's just a total joke.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me know.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway. Face it, dude, you're a shit eater. A clinical case.
The evidence that these people were patsies is really pretty glaring. Take the case of Hani Hanjour, who supposedly flew some sort of 270 degree sloping descent maneuver to hit the Pentagon, some feat of flying that professional pilots have said they could not execute. This guy Hani was up in some single-engine plane with a flight instructor once and the guy was so terrible (probably mostly because he didn't really know English and didn't understand anything the instructor was saying) that they got back on the ground and the instructor said never again!
There is a pattern here where anybody who really had any contact with any of these people saw that they were bumbling incompetents who couldn't carry out an operation like this. When you do minimal research on this and other similar events, the fact that the people they are pinning this on are just patsies - this is just glaring, it's right in your face. Lee Harvey Oswald back when, or more recently, these Arab ethnics in France that they say did these various things . the fact that these people are patsies is just right in front of one's nose when you study these events even minimally.
But when you talk with a shit eater, it's just like: "Oh, but that's the official story. It must be true! You're a conspiracy theorist, nya nya!"
"Of course Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a ticket, dammit!!! What more proof do you need???!!!!""
This is where you always end up when you debate a shit eater.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:33 am GMT • 300 Words @Boris
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.This is an obvious fucking lie.You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc. etc. etc."Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
Dishonest or stupid? My answer--both.
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".
Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty, and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable.
• Replies: @RurikUrsula Haverbeck ... ..., an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, ... .... Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,That's exactly true JR, I consider something like that an obvious travesty at the very least, and an abomination of human reason and compassion and simple decency. She may be wrong, but by what right do they have to tell her she's not allowed to ask questions? Fuck that shit. And fuck the people who put her in prison. What are they so afraid of, eh? Is what I'd like to know.He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"ahh, but JR, you're forgetting the other, shocking proof that this was Osama and his 19 henchmen.. the passport!the magical passport that flew out of the terrorist's pocket or carry on, and through the carnage of the plane's explosion and through the fireball and all that glass and concrete and then gently glided down t0 the New York street, where it was quickly found before the dust fell on it and handed to the FBI and then rushed to the MSM, where upon they all let us all know that it had been found! so that we could all know who was responsible for this heinous attack!
I suppose Boris forgot about that unassailable evidence and proof or he would have surely mentioned it by now. And that's not all! They found Korans in the terrorist's rental car! Did you know that?
and they caught some of the terrorists actually filming the first plane hitting the tower, and these slimy bastards were all happy and celebrating the horrors, while the people who saw them were aghast, at how anyone could be happy at all that death of innocent people.
err, um, wait, no, those weren't the terrorists come to think of it. Never mind that last part.
But the passport!!
that was undeniable physical evidence! Proof!
and then there was the witness, right there on the spot, to explain how the buildings collapsed
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14
all these things were explained to us all right away. They knew it was Bin Laden within hours. And they knew right away how the buildings fell, and had planted that "knowledge" into us all, with videos like the Harley guy, who planted that seed in our collective conscieness. for how hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete was going to >>poof<< into so much powder..
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense" , @Incitatus Of course we all grieve for Ursula. Ten months in prison. Pity. But look on the bright side. Perhaps she'll be able to knit a few flags and armbands? Sweaters for the Eastern Front? Thermal underpants for the SS? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:58 am GMT • 100 Words @WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been for nothing.
I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it.
If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible.
Type "no planes 9/11″ into youtube for hints on how hijacking no planes at all is even more sensible. Some of the videos make better cases than others, but a half dozen or so appear conclusive. So sensible is the no planes theory, that one wonders why the plotters wouldn't have thought of it.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI.
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 9:37 am GMT • 600 Words
Not to answer for The Great Revusky, I'll offer some suggestions of my own:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out entirely on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would stand as a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision on the fly.• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend on this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns to manageable lengths.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that camped out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were rent paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were ensconced in both impact zones.
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for the most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.
Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
• Replies: @Incitatus But surely those who can set up and stage-manage such a complex event without detection wouldn't screw up? I'm unable to find much of any value stored in WTC 7. Giuliani's crisis control center, yes, but that's hardly a reason to risk uncovering the conspiracy hours after the fall of WTC 1 & 2..If WTC 1 & 2 central core columns were, as you suggest, the only mining required, how was it done without detection? Four years effort by Israeli 'artists'? Undetected? What was their motive?
You posit the exterior 14x14" steel 'cage' columns (240/floor) need not be mined but were instead "cut...to manageable lengths." What lengths? How was it done without detection?
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
CGI = computer-generated-imagery? So the planes were an illusion? Did they hypnotize eyewitnesses who saw the planes? The news crews? Etc?
Still, that's great news! Where do you suggest two friends of mine, parents of a stewardess on American Flight 11, find their daughter? , @Jonathan Revusky
Not to answer for The Great Revusky,LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo agent. He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing. He's got some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth...
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 11:40 am GMT
But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no?
I am not absolutely certain. New evidence could sway my opinion. You don't have any.
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right? It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyImagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right?Well, of course. What's your point?Oh,... hold on... I see... you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
Sheesh. I guess I should explain it to you....
Look... For example... for Lee Harvey Oswald to have assassinated JFK, he had to be in Dallas on 11/22/1963, right? That's a necessary condition. So if you could show that he was in New York or Miami on that day, it would be all over. Obviously he didn't do it in that case. But no, he was in Dallas on that day. The problem is that this is a necessary condition for him being guilty, but is certainly not sufficient .
Mohamed Atta, like anybody, could not even board the flight if he didn't have a ticket, so if it was shown that he never had a ticket, that would be game over, like if Oswald was not even in Dallas.
But no, Atta did have a plane ticket apparently. I assume he did. And of course, Oswald was in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. The problem is that these things are simply not proof of any sort of what needs to be proven in either case. It's a necessary , but not a sufficient condition.
So what is going on here, Mr. Boris Shit-Eater, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that you don't even understand the most basic things in logic, like a necessary versus a sufficient condition. But, of course, in the shit eater mental universe, there is no need for any of that. The MSM tells you something so therefore it's true. That's how shit eaters operate.
It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.LOL. Project much? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 11:52 am GMT • 100 Words
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is stupid
I told you where to find the evidence. You seem to be getting dumber.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
Hani Hanjour
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better? And, of course, many pilots say that what he did was possible. Do you see how you don't apply the same scrutiny to things that you WANT to believe?
This is how conspiracy theorists behave. Video evidence? Fake! Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyI told you where to find the evidence.Oh, you did, huh?But anyway, this is getting nonsensical. How could you even tell me where to find evidence if you don't even know what evidence is? I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.You're just projecting. You are the one with no evidence for your beliefs. This is quite obvious. Somebody asks you what the evidence is and your "evidence" is stuff like "Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket". When you are asked for evidence (and I specifically said "the strongest evidence available") and you're coming up with worthless crap like that, it obviously means you have no evidence. Surely everybody sees that, no?Years before??? Uhh, look, the incident in question was in August 2001, less than a month before he allegedly did his top gun maneuver with a passenger jet into the Pentagon.
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland; though he was declined after exhibiting difficulty controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]The above is from the Wikipedia page devoted to Hani Hanjour, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour#2001He was not competent to fly a small Cessna in August of 2001. It was not YEARS before. You see, you're just making up shit now.
This is like some guy who can't even pass a basic driving test in a regular car and three or four weeks later, he is competing successfully in the Indy 500. Or driving the Grand Prix circuit.
If this was the only problem in the overall story, but it's like plot glitch #174 or something. I mean, the whole narrative is just shot through with ridiculous stuff like this.
Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously. If a professional pilot with thousands of hours of experience flying Boeing passenger jets tells you that he himself could not execute the maneuver, it does not take a bloody genius to realize that Hani Hanjour certainly could not do it!If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that it is a controlled demolition! I don't presume to know more about flying airplanes than seasoned professional pilots or more about building implosions than a professional demolitions expert.
Now, it's true that you have high level experts claiming the opposite, but you can generally see that these are people who are pretty beholden to the power structure, and will feel obliged to go along with whatever the official line is, such as the people at NIST who claim that building 7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled fires. These people say that because they have to. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 2:33 pm GMT • 100 Words
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply because they believe in free speech.
Rurik denies the Holocaust and whines that Germans have been maligned because history was written down. You are probably stupid enough to agree with him.
"Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
You keep repeating this lie. I wonder why? Oh, you're a fucking moron. That's right.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no?I am not absolutely certain. New evidence could sway my opinion. You don't have any.And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right? It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right?
Well, of course. What's your point?
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
Sheesh. I guess I should explain it to you .
Look For example for Lee Harvey Oswald to have assassinated JFK, he had to be in Dallas on 11/22/1963, right? That's a necessary condition. So if you could show that he was in New York or Miami on that day, it would be all over. Obviously he didn't do it in that case. But no, he was in Dallas on that day. The problem is that this is a necessary condition for him being guilty, but is certainly not sufficient .
Mohamed Atta, like anybody, could not even board the flight if he didn't have a ticket, so if it was shown that he never had a ticket, that would be game over, like if Oswald was not even in Dallas.
But no, Atta did have a plane ticket apparently. I assume he did. And of course, Oswald was in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. The problem is that these things are simply not proof of any sort of what needs to be proven in either case. It's a necessary , but not a sufficient condition.
So what is going on here, Mr. Boris Shit-Eater, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that you don't even understand the most basic things in logic, like a necessary versus a sufficient condition. But, of course, in the shit eater mental universe, there is no need for any of that. The MSM tells you something so therefore it's true. That's how shit eaters operate.
It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.
LOL. Project much?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 4:35 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik
I'm on the fence. I'd really like to know.you can start herehttp://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
go to the featured article on page 21
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven didn't implode into its basement because of office fires.
from there, you go down the rabbit hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VtozvvG4c
I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth etc). Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable to venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is all very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?
Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need not believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however, coughs up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer YouTube, ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers at all.
• Replies: @RurikI ask specific questions.that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture. Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence. Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings, OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911 commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did? No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination of JFK 20 minutes before it happened. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 4:55 pm GMT • 500 Words @Boris
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is stupidI told you where to find the evidence. You seem to be getting dumber.Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway.You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better? And, of course, many pilots say that what he did was possible. Do you see how you don't apply the same scrutiny to things that you WANT to believe?
Hani HanjourThis is how conspiracy theorists behave. Video evidence? Fake! Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!
I told you where to find the evidence.
Oh, you did, huh?
But anyway, this is getting nonsensical. How could you even tell me where to find evidence if you don't even know what evidence is? I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
You're just projecting. You are the one with no evidence for your beliefs. This is quite obvious. Somebody asks you what the evidence is and your "evidence" is stuff like "Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket". When you are asked for evidence (and I specifically said "the strongest evidence available") and you're coming up with worthless crap like that, it obviously means you have no evidence. Surely everybody sees that, no?
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?
Years before??? Uhh, look, the incident in question was in August 2001, less than a month before he allegedly did his top gun maneuver with a passenger jet into the Pentagon.
Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland; though he was declined after exhibiting difficulty controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]
The above is from the Wikipedia page devoted to Hani Hanjour, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour#2001
He was not competent to fly a small Cessna in August of 2001. It was not YEARS before. You see, you're just making up shit now.
This is like some guy who can't even pass a basic driving test in a regular car and three or four weeks later, he is competing successfully in the Indy 500. Or driving the Grand Prix circuit.
If this was the only problem in the overall story, but it's like plot glitch #174 or something. I mean, the whole narrative is just shot through with ridiculous stuff like this.
Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously. If a professional pilot with thousands of hours of experience flying Boeing passenger jets tells you that he himself could not execute the maneuver, it does not take a bloody genius to realize that Hani Hanjour certainly could not do it!
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that it is a controlled demolition! I don't presume to know more about flying airplanes than seasoned professional pilots or more about building implosions than a professional demolitions expert.
Now, it's true that you have high level experts claiming the opposite, but you can generally see that these are people who are pretty beholden to the power structure, and will feel obliged to go along with whatever the official line is, such as the people at NIST who claim that building 7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled fires. These people say that because they have to.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT • 200 Words @Erebus Not to answer for The Great Revusky, I'll offer some suggestions of my own:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out entirely on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would stand as a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision on the fly.• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend on this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns to manageable lengths.No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that camped out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were rent paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were ensconced in both impact zones.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for the most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration... bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
But surely those who can set up and stage-manage such a complex event without detection wouldn't screw up? I'm unable to find much of any value stored in WTC 7. Giuliani's crisis control center, yes, but that's hardly a reason to risk uncovering the conspiracy hours after the fall of WTC 1 & 2..
If WTC 1 & 2 central core columns were, as you suggest, the only mining required, how was it done without detection? Four years effort by Israeli 'artists'? Undetected? What was their motive?
You posit the exterior 14×14" steel 'cage' columns (240/floor) need not be mined but were instead "cut to manageable lengths." What lengths? How was it done without detection?
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
CGI = computer-generated-imagery? So the planes were an illusion? Did they hypnotize eyewitnesses who saw the planes? The news crews? Etc?
Still, that's great news! Where do you suggest two friends of mine, parents of a stewardess on American Flight 11, find their daughter?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT • 100 Words
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
You are so stupid. I already wrote this:
Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence.
See? You can't even fucking read.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient. You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof," when I never even used the word. Because you are too stupid to argue honestly.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyOh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.(Shrug.) Little children are always using big words that they have overheard adults using. It doesn't really mean that they understand what they are saying.
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what a necessary versus a sufficient condition is. Or you could understand what the beg the question fallacy is. But the problem remains that, at the key moment, you are able to NOT understand it.
Because, at the key moment, the shit eater always ends up telling you (either directly or circuitously) that the official story is proof of the official story. Never fails. Earlier you told me to go read the page on wikipedia. Well, the page on wikipedia is just a synopsis of the official story. I asked you for proof so you were just telling me that the official story is proof of the official story.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient. You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof,"Well, that's a mischaracterization. The fact remains, you said that Mohammed Atta having a plane ticket was evidence. It was in your list of evidence.AND NO, the fact remains: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!
I'll tell you what it is. It is SHIT. Because that is all a shit eater ever comes up with in a debate.
Just shit. Like... the guy bought a plane ticket so he's the hijacker ... The government story is proof of the government story ...
You're not the first shit eater I've debated with. All you guys ever come up with is SHIT. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 5:10 pm GMT • 100 Words @Sam Shama Boris and Incitatus,
I want you to know that Revusky loves you both, owing to your kind extension to him, the opportunity to partake of his daily bread - 9/11 "truth". Poor chap's been through a bit of a lean period lately; breadwise that is.I'd suggest a little caution nevertheless . You see, he repeatedly calls his interlocutors, "shit-eaters", a term he intends entirely as a fraternal invitation to a select club, of which, the dinner menu is limited, noxious and, -not to put too fine a point on it - unnatural. But of course he is entitled to his preferences, this being the day and age of inclusiveness and all that, I say to each his own.
Btw he adores infinite reduction loops, and hopes one day to set foot on the moon. In the meantime do remind him - the dosage is twice daily, ideally on an empty stomach.
Sam,
Enjoyed your advice, which I take to heart.
I too noted JR's fixation with coprophagia. I put it down to ecological pragmatism on his part. He produces such immense quantities of the product, he suggestively hopes others will consume it. He must be in constant danger of exploding.
Honoré de Balzac had a great observation on conspracists:
"[they] passed sovereign judgment on society the more readily because of the inferiority of their own status, for unappreciated men make up for their lowly position by the disdainful eye they cast upon the world."
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 5:49 pm GMT • 400 Words @Jonathan Revusky
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty, and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable.
Ursula Haverbeck , an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, . Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,
That's exactly true JR, I consider something like that an obvious travesty at the very least, and an abomination of human reason and compassion and simple decency. She may be wrong, but by what right do they have to tell her she's not allowed to ask questions? Fuck that shit. And fuck the people who put her in prison. What are they so afraid of, eh? Is what I'd like to know.
He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
ahh, but JR, you're forgetting the other, shocking proof that this was Osama and his 19 henchmen.. the passport!
the magical passport that flew out of the terrorist's pocket or carry on, and through the carnage of the plane's explosion and through the fireball and all that glass and concrete and then gently glided down t0 the New York street, where it was quickly found before the dust fell on it and handed to the FBI and then rushed to the MSM, where upon they all let us all know that it had been found! so that we could all know who was responsible for this heinous attack!
I suppose Boris forgot about that unassailable evidence and proof or he would have surely mentioned it by now. And that's not all! They found Korans in the terrorist's rental car! Did you know that?
and they caught some of the terrorists actually filming the first plane hitting the tower, and these slimy bastards were all happy and celebrating the horrors, while the people who saw them were aghast, at how anyone could be happy at all that death of innocent people.
err, um, wait, no, those weren't the terrorists come to think of it. Never mind that last part.
But the passport!!
that was undeniable physical evidence! Proof!
and then there was the witness, right there on the spot, to explain how the buildings collapsed
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14
all these things were explained to us all right away. They knew it was Bin Laden within hours. And they knew right away how the buildings fell, and had planted that "knowledge" into us all, with videos like the Harley guy, who planted that seed in our collective conscieness. for how hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete was going to >>poof<< into so much powder..
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 6:03 pm GMT • 300 Words
I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
Still embarrassing yourself.
he was declined after exhibiting difficulty controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]
Here's the citation for that claim:
https://web.archive.org/web/20020405020924/http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
So your theory collapses. Unless the guy lied about this part, but told the truth about Hanjour not being able to control the Cessna with much skill? You are dumb enough to believe that, so
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously.
Well, so you take Bernard seriously then? Or, wait, he's a government stooge who accidentally told the truth once? Shape-shifter?
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that it is a controlled demolition!
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
So is he (Circle one^):
Government stooge
Shapeshifter
Lizard man
Hologramsuch as the people at NIST who claim that building 7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled fires
This is another lie. I already posted a summary of what they said.
I really don't care what your response is. I know it will probably be more insanely stupid than the last.
[MORE]
^Disclaimer for morons: Don't actually circle it on your monitor.• Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
Well, so you take Bernard seriously then?Look, I wasn't there, but the incident, as recounted, seems to be true and it happened 3 weeks before 9/11, NOT years before, as you were trying to claim. To recap...Hani Hanjour tried to rent a single-engine Cessna and a flight instructor went up with him and said the guy did not have the skill to fly that plane. The single-engine Cessna.
Now, it is claimed that 3 weeks later and Hani can fly the big Boeing in a maneuver that professional pilots with thousands of hours have said they could not do. Just to focus this, here is what the cockpit of a Boeing 757 looks like:
https://www.google.es/search?q=boeing+757+cockpit&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA-8bMu4XPAhVLuBQKHaXbA_oQ_AUICCgB&biw=1024&bih=483
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what they said he did. But look, obviously, if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September! And this business that he "pointed that plane at a building and hit it", that is not what allegedly happened with the Pentagon flight. The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop and, in the final stretch flew at treetop level into the exact part of the Pentagon that was hit. And as I said, you can look at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and see that there are professional pilots with thousands of hours flying these Boeing airliners who say they could not fly that maneuver. So the guy supposedly was flying one of these big planes for the first (and last) time in his life and successfully carried off this maneuver. It's completely ridiculous bullshit, but when you're a shit eater, it's like "mmm, yum, yum".Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.And really, you know, this is such an absurd argument to be having. Okay, it's obvious that if somebody can't really control a Cessna in August of 2001, he can't do some top gun maneuver in a big Boeing in September of 2001. But it doesn't even matter. The flight didn't even take place! Or certainly, at the very least, there is not a shred of evidence that any Boeing airliner crashed into the Pentagon anyway.
So, finally, whether Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane in that maneuver or not hardly matters. The overall narrative just has so many problems in it that, even if you concede a given point just for the sake of argument, like assume that Hani Hanjour really could fly a Boeing 757 in this elaborate maneuver only 3 weeks after demonstrating an inability to control a Cessna, it still doesn't matter because there is very strong reason to believe that the flight did not even take place.
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:I hadn't seen that one before, but a quick googling shows that there are at least a couple of extensive rebuttals to this article. For example, here:http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
and here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5126
Now, I lack the expertise to be certain about these things, but I would just make the point that if you googled up this Blanchard stuff, then you would easily find the above-linked rebuttals as well. But since the rebuttals don't support what you want to believe, you just don't mention them.
It's like there are phone calls, I mean testimony that somebody got a phone call, and then that supports the official story, you say that is strong proof but if I point to testimony where Atta's father got a phone call the day after 9/11 from his son, you immediately say Atta's father was lying.
Your whole thing is just always going to be to cherry pick things based on what you want to believe. That's a completely corrupted intellectual process.
The reason I am quite certain that the official narrative is untrue is that there just really is such an accumulation of problems with the story that it really just can't be true. The Hani Hanjour thing is like just one of literally hundreds of glitches in the story, that the guy they say flew that plane obviously did not have the skills. That the flight instructor in question, the Bernard guy then claimed that he did, you can see that he must have been pressured to say that. If you can't fly a Cessna, you can't fly a Boeing 757. And besides, the conditions under which this supposedly happened, where the guy had just murdered the pilot and taken over the plane and his adrenaline would be sky high and he sits down and, flying this plane for the very first time, calmly maneuvers the plane in this 270 degree looping descent.
This just didn't happen. There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there! This is all just a constructed fiction. Anybody who studies this in any kind of intellectually honest way surely comes to that conclusion.
The only way you can believe this stuff is if you have this kind of intense emotional need to believe it. You look at what they are saying happened cold-bloodedly and it is really just glaringly obviously that it's all total bullshit. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 6:05 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty, and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable.
Of course we all grieve for Ursula. Ten months in prison. Pity. But look on the bright side. Perhaps she'll be able to knit a few flags and armbands? Sweaters for the Eastern Front? Thermal underpants for the SS?
• Replies: @RurikOf course we all grieve for Ursula.it's not about Ursulayou can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space for her
http://carolynyeager.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ursula%20haverbeck.jpg?itok=GI4bbz9C
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm GMT • 400 Words @Incitatus I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth etc). Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable to venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is all very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?
Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need not believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however, coughs up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer YouTube, ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers at all.
I ask specific questions.
that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture. Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence. Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.
But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings, OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911 commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did? No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering" or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading your readers. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT • 300 Words @Incitatus Of course we all grieve for Ursula. Ten months in prison. Pity. But look on the bright side. Perhaps she'll be able to knit a few flags and armbands? Sweaters for the Eastern Front? Thermal underpants for the SS?
Of course we all grieve for Ursula.
it's not about Ursula
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space for her
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
• Replies: @Jonathan Revuskyyou can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist scumbag. He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist power. Look at what he wrote.It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know. , @Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell? , @L.K Well, Rurik,
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is here to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or free speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to be applied in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it... in fact, people are not allowed to even know there is a debate on the holohoax.Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:Most people are led to believe - I was one of them - in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above.
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking, we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking, of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one, but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such, did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional account is an extreme exaggeration.
This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier, which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdfhttp://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical. You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain... could you clarify your position now? You're starting to sound really wishy washy.Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is... it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis -- that the official story is simply not physically possible.
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article: http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked. It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite murky. There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Renee_May_calls
http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-what-the-telephone-records-reveal-about-calls-from-aa-flight-77-did-barbara-olson-attempt-any-calls-at-all/26594
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight in question...
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty strong reasons to lie too!
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think the debate is basically over.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what you want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't support what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very clear at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane getting hijacked.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time, for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American Airlines 767's in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing 767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these phone calls."
Oh, and even then, how that gets you to the bearded guy in Afghanistan....
" you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story is simply not physically possible."
Great point! 2700! Something must be fishy.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers, but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects or engineers). It gets even better – many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada, Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth. If the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist, bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
ae911truth? Maybe Richard Gage enjoys having a nice tax-exempt slush fund for travel and lecture fees. Maybe he enjoys gadfly celebrity his practice never delivered.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyBut how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71% of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe the official story.So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that doesn't mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor of all the wars! Obviously!
Hey, how's the weather in Tel Aviv? Hot as hell, eh? Have they put air conditioning in your office yet? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:01 pm GMT • 200 Words @Erebus Not to answer for The Great Revusky, I'll offer some suggestions of my own:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out entirely on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would stand as a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision on the fly.• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend on this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns to manageable lengths.No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that camped out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were rent paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were ensconced in both impact zones.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for the most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration... bungled Katrina and screwed-up Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
Not to answer for The Great Revusky,
LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.
I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo agent. He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing. He's got some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
• Replies: @Erebus Hi,Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring in his American Pravda series. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:09 pm GMT • 200 Words @Rurik
Of course we all grieve for Ursula.it's not about Ursulayou can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space for her
http://carolynyeager.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ursula%20haverbeck.jpg?itok=GI4bbz9C
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist scumbag. He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist power. Look at what he wrote.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
• Replies: @RurikThat's a rhetorical question, isn't it?;)It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.extremely salient insight JRScumbags will be scumbags.I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes there's just no other way to put it!That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear that Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little old grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerityRemember that Sam? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus "...you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story is simply not physically possible."
Great point! 2700! Something must be fishy.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers, but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects or engineers). It gets even better - many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada, Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth. If the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist, bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
ae911truth? Maybe Richard Gage enjoys having a nice tax-exempt slush fund for travel and lecture fees. Maybe he enjoys gadfly celebrity his practice never delivered.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71% of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe the official story.
So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that doesn't mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor of all the wars! Obviously!
Hey, how's the weather in Tel Aviv? Hot as hell, eh? Have they put air conditioning in your office yet?
• Replies: @Incitatus How do you type confined in a straightjacket - do you hold a pen in your mouth and peck letters one-by-one? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist scumbag. He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist power. Look at what he wrote.It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
extremely salient insight JR
Scumbags will be scumbags.
I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes there's just no other way to put it!
That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear that Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little old grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerity
Remember that Sam?
• Replies: @Sam Shama Oh Hello Rurik
Ursula Haverbeck, the lovely little granny which has a rap sheet longer than your arm?The Zio-boot? You mean this one?
According to Agence France-PresseHaverbeck is a notorious extremist who was once chaired a far-right training center shut down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda, according to AFP. She has a rap sheet and a suspended sentence for sedition.
http://www.unz.com/article/what-obama-should-have-told-bibi/#comment-1239335btw I see Revusky getting into his usual foamy-mouth-eyeballs-spinning routine.
Jonathan,
fear not your hunger, it will be sated; coprophagic services are sought after at Upper Manhattan's recycling plant. What hour shall I ask them to contact you? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:43 pm GMT • 300 Words @Rurik
Of course we all grieve for Ursula.it's not about Ursulayou can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space for her
http://carolynyeager.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ursula%20haverbeck.jpg?itok=GI4bbz9C
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
" even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."
" and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000 – were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn – most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
• Replies: @Rurik I was reading your quote and thinking to myself, wow, what insight and pure, raw humanity from this mystery writer..until I saw it sourced ;)
Does only German blood count?no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and children, who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monsteranyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes, every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian people for generations. , @SolontoCroesus
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000 – were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?1. estimates of Dresden dead are tendentious
2. not all those killed in Warsaw were Jews: only Jews count. If non-Jews swell the kill-count, that diverts attention from teh eternal victim ©
3. Real he-man Jews deride Warsaw Jews for not being sufficiently he-man. Best not to talk about it.
4. Auschwitz has a more established brand.
5. No gas chambers in Warsaw. Epic fail. , @Jonathan Revusky Hi, Ziofascist scumbag.I cherish free speech.LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I hope she dies and burns in hell."But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doingAh, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?But I wonder about this.... is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism? Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But you could start.... it's not illegal... YET! , @utu If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw number by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany had over Warsaw in 1939. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:52 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042 + 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71% of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe the official story.So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that doesn't mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor of all the wars! Obviously!
Hey, how's the weather in Tel Aviv? Hot as hell, eh? Have they put air conditioning in your office yet?
How do you type confined in a straightjacket – do you hold a pen in your mouth and peck letters one-by-one?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 7:59 pm GMT • 900 Words @Boris
I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.Still embarrassing yourself.he was declined after exhibiting difficulty controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]Here's the citation for that claim:https://web.archive.org/web/20020405020924/http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.So your theory collapses. Unless the guy lied about this part, but told the truth about Hanjour not being able to control the Cessna with much skill? You are dumb enough to believe that, so...Well, so you take Bernard seriously then? Or, wait, he's a government stooge who accidentally told the truth once? Shape-shifter?
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously.If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that it is a controlled demolition!Here's a different expert's view--an expert who actually examined the evidence:http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
So is he (Circle one^):
Government stooge
Shapeshifter
Lizard man
Hologramsuch as the people at NIST who claim that building 7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled firesThis is another lie. I already posted a summary of what they said.I really don't care what your response is. I know it will probably be more insanely stupid than the last.
^Disclaimer for morons: Don't actually circle it on your monitor.Well, so you take Bernard seriously then?
Look, I wasn't there, but the incident, as recounted, seems to be true and it happened 3 weeks before 9/11, NOT years before, as you were trying to claim. To recap
Hani Hanjour tried to rent a single-engine Cessna and a flight instructor went up with him and said the guy did not have the skill to fly that plane. The single-engine Cessna.
Now, it is claimed that 3 weeks later and Hani can fly the big Boeing in a maneuver that professional pilots with thousands of hours have said they could not do. Just to focus this, here is what the cockpit of a Boeing 757 looks like:
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what they said he did. But look, obviously, if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September! And this business that he "pointed that plane at a building and hit it", that is not what allegedly happened with the Pentagon flight. The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop and, in the final stretch flew at treetop level into the exact part of the Pentagon that was hit. And as I said, you can look at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and see that there are professional pilots with thousands of hours flying these Boeing airliners who say they could not fly that maneuver. So the guy supposedly was flying one of these big planes for the first (and last) time in his life and successfully carried off this maneuver. It's completely ridiculous bullshit, but when you're a shit eater, it's like "mmm, yum, yum".
And really, you know, this is such an absurd argument to be having. Okay, it's obvious that if somebody can't really control a Cessna in August of 2001, he can't do some top gun maneuver in a big Boeing in September of 2001. But it doesn't even matter. The flight didn't even take place! Or certainly, at the very least, there is not a shred of evidence that any Boeing airliner crashed into the Pentagon anyway.
So, finally, whether Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane in that maneuver or not hardly matters. The overall narrative just has so many problems in it that, even if you concede a given point just for the sake of argument, like assume that Hani Hanjour really could fly a Boeing 757 in this elaborate maneuver only 3 weeks after demonstrating an inability to control a Cessna, it still doesn't matter because there is very strong reason to believe that the flight did not even take place.
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
I hadn't seen that one before, but a quick googling shows that there are at least a couple of extensive rebuttals to this article. For example, here:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
and here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5126
Now, I lack the expertise to be certain about these things, but I would just make the point that if you googled up this Blanchard stuff, then you would easily find the above-linked rebuttals as well. But since the rebuttals don't support what you want to believe, you just don't mention them.
It's like there are phone calls, I mean testimony that somebody got a phone call, and then that supports the official story, you say that is strong proof but if I point to testimony where Atta's father got a phone call the day after 9/11 from his son, you immediately say Atta's father was lying.
Your whole thing is just always going to be to cherry pick things based on what you want to believe. That's a completely corrupted intellectual process.
The reason I am quite certain that the official narrative is untrue is that there just really is such an accumulation of problems with the story that it really just can't be true. The Hani Hanjour thing is like just one of literally hundreds of glitches in the story, that the guy they say flew that plane obviously did not have the skills. That the flight instructor in question, the Bernard guy then claimed that he did, you can see that he must have been pressured to say that. If you can't fly a Cessna, you can't fly a Boeing 757. And besides, the conditions under which this supposedly happened, where the guy had just murdered the pilot and taken over the plane and his adrenaline would be sky high and he sits down and, flying this plane for the very first time, calmly maneuvers the plane in this 270 degree looping descent.
This just didn't happen. There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there! This is all just a constructed fiction. Anybody who studies this in any kind of intellectually honest way surely comes to that conclusion.
The only way you can believe this stuff is if you have this kind of intense emotional need to believe it. You look at what they are saying happened cold-bloodedly and it is really just glaringly obviously that it's all total bullshit.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 200 Words @Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
I was reading your quote and thinking to myself, wow, what insight and pure, raw humanity from this mystery writer..
until I saw it sourced
Does only German blood count?
no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and children, who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monster
anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes, every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian people for generations.
• Replies: @Incitatus"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:"...starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_IINote the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Rotterdam May 1940? 884 civilians killed, 85,000 left homeless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_BlitzHow about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_GuernicaHow about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken to concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village was leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacreHow about Oradour-sur-Glane Jun 1944? 642 civilians murdered and -wait for it - women and children deliberately burned to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacreThere are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
Don't forget your promise to "condemn them [Nazis] with all of my breath." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT
Oh, man, you guys are way too close to figuring it out. You are so getting chemtrailed this weekend.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 9:39 pm GMT
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed. The last 100 or so comments are embarrassing and likely to put off anyone with an interest in the subject at hand.
• Replies: @Boris Stupid conspiracies are par for the course for Unz.com. , @Jonathan RevuskyI've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed.Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Not to answer for The Great Revusky,LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo agent. He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing. He's got some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth...
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Hi,
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring in his American Pravda series.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyWell, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney,It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters! , @Incitatus"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents!"Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger."I'm guessing, of course..."You seem to do a lot of that. No answers to simple questions. Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain. "The Great Revusky" seems equally barren. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 10:42 pm GMT • 400 Words
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what they said he did.
You keep making things up.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing. But yeah, sure they guy is lying about the part you hate but telling the truth about the part you like. Is there any better evidence that you are a complete moronic hack?
The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop
Yeah, professional pilots think Hanjour could have done it:
http://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object - even a large one like the Pentagon - at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon? I should have seen that coming. Do you believe the CGI people too? And the nuke guys?
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims and suggest they are in on the conspiracy. It's not bad enough that they get their lives cut short, nope. You guys have to take a shit on their ashes too.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyDid you come up with this yourself or is this some talking point that was just handed to you? YOu can read what was said, but the problem was not solely that Hani Hanjour could not land the plane. He could not really control the plane in flight. I'm not a pilot myself, but looking at this as a generalist, the upshot of it clearly seems to be that that Hani Hanjour did not possess even elementary plane flying skills for a small plane in August of 2001. And then in September of 2001 carried out a maneuver in a big Boeing jet that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone with years of experience.if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September!Huh? His evaluation included landing.But I was thinking about this... there were four or five Arab hijackers in the plane according to the story. How would they even know which one of them flew the plane? Anybody who made a phone call wouldn't know the names of the various hijackers, would they? So they just tell a story and there's no proof whatsoever of the story anyway... And then a shit eater like you, rather than just admit the obvious, that there isn't any proof of this aspect of the story, you just start making up shit to back up the story. Like you start by trying to claim that the incident where he couldn't fly a Cessna was years before 9/11. No, it was 3 weeks before 9/11!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon?Well, I don't know. What would be idiotic about thinking that? All I said was that there is not a shred of evidence that a Boeing airliner really hit the Pentagon. At least I've never seen any.
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victimsOh, I'm maligning the victims, am I? And that really bothers you.... Wanting to get at the truth of what really happened is to disrespect the victims...I can't believe you came up with that shit yourself. You've got a list of talking points that you're running through, right? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- L.K says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 10:45 pm GMT • 400 Words @Rurik
Of course we all grieve for Ursula.it's not about Ursulayou can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space for her
http://carolynyeager.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/ursula%20haverbeck.jpg?itok=GI4bbz9C
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
Well, Rurik,
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is here to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or free speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to be applied in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it in fact, people are not allowed to even know there is a debate on the holohoax.Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking, we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking, of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one, but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such, did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional account is an extreme exaggeration.
Most people are led to believe – I was one of them – in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above.
This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier, which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdfhttp://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
• Replies: @Rurik Hey L.K.,holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to mebut this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 10:50 pm GMT @Anonymous I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed. The last 100 or so comments are embarrassing and likely to put off anyone with an interest in the subject at hand.
Stupid conspiracies are par for the course for Unz.com.
• Replies: @Anonymous It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy reading odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment section devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable diatribes, something of real value is lost.Make The Comment Section Great Again. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 10, 2016 at 10:57 pm GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000 – were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?
1. estimates of Dresden dead are tendentious
• Replies: @James Kabala I think you misunderstood his points in every respect. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
2. not all those killed in Warsaw were Jews: only Jews count. If non-Jews swell the kill-count, that diverts attention from teh eternal victim ©
3. Real he-man Jews deride Warsaw Jews for not being sufficiently he-man. Best not to talk about it.
4. Auschwitz has a more established brand.
5. No gas chambers in Warsaw. Epic fail.
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 12:24 am GMT • 100 Words @Boris Stupid conspiracies are par for the course for Unz.com.
It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy reading odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment section devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable diatribes, something of real value is lost.
Make The Comment Section Great Again.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Your #335 Comment has a ihick yellow-brown rectangular frame around it. How did you achieve that? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 4:57 am GMT @CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of 9/11 Truther theories here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
What do you mean by debunking. It is in fact concisely and clearly explaining 9/11 Truth theories castigated as conspiracy theories by the criminal rulers.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 8:50 am GMT • 100 Words @Rurik
I ask specific questions.that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture. Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence. Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings, OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911 commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did? No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.
I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something – in this case the collapse of WTC 7 – is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering" or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition impossible .*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading your readers.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyI have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official government story. You never provided any.Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the official story? Yes or no? , @Rurik
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*?I rest on my laurels wizwe've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in an attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any issue you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to everyone here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Now why, I ask you, would I ever feel the inclination so qualify myself to the likes of you, eh? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 8:56 am GMT @Anonymous It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy reading odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment section devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable diatribes, something of real value is lost.
Make The Comment Section Great Again.
Your #335 Comment has a ihick yellow-brown rectangular frame around it. How did you achieve that?
• Replies: @Anonymous Can't speak with 100% certainty, but I believe it's a mark of distinction from the comment moderator. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT @CanSpeccy
I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct the official versions.Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical channel is exposed.Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower. Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers.
Among the best authorities on thermite is the National Institute of Standards, or NIST, the non-governmental body hired to "explain" the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. In the past, NIST worked closely with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on the development of explosive nanothermites .
Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion of three WTC buildings.
The recent doco about the American chemist and Norwegian metallurgist who sought to correct the official version by reference to aluminium as sn explosive hypothesised that it was molten aluminium flowing down into pools of water that explained the reported explosive sounds.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 9:27 am GMT @Ron Unz For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/
Ron
You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books on the subject – which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which can be found here:
http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories
• Replies: @NosytheDuke A bit like reviewing or recommending a movie, that you haven't watched.I must admit though that you have a decided flair for the consistently proud display of your ignorance. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:09 am GMT • 200 Words @Erebus Hi,
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring in his American Pravda series.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.
So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney,
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
• Replies: @BorisBetty-with-zero-life-history-OngIt's odious how the victims become "invented characters" to fools like you based on zero evidence.
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!Here are some pictures of the dead woman whose memory you tarnish:
http://www.bettyong.org/photos.htm Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:17 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering" or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading your readers.
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.
Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official government story. You never provided any.
Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520
So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the official story? Yes or no?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I am content to wait on Rurik answering me without your participation. In the meantime I am close to concluding that The Saker has included some pretty dodgy stuff in his new contribution on 9/11 which I wasn't aware he claimed any special knowledge of. , @ErebusNormally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.Thanks for that Jonathan.
The Wiz, notwithstanding his loathsome obfuscation and word mincing, can occasionally cut to the heart of the matter.
Namely, at this level of criminality, there's no such thing as a free truth. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:31 am GMT • 200 Words @Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
Hi, Ziofascist scumbag.
I cherish free speech.
LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I hope she dies and burns in hell."
But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing
Ah, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?
But I wonder about this . is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism? Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But you could start . it's not illegal YET!
• Replies: @Incitatus No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000 killed in Aug 1944? What a surprise!Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please). And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:33 am GMT @Jonathan Revusky
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official government story. You never provided any.Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the official story? Yes or no?
I am content to wait on Rurik answering me without your participation. In the meantime I am close to concluding that The Saker has included some pretty dodgy stuff in his new contribution on 9/11 which I wasn't aware he claimed any special knowledge of.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:47 am GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed. The last 100 or so comments are embarrassing and likely to put off anyone with an interest in the subject at hand.
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed.
Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
• Replies: @BorisOf course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!No one made this argument. You're such a delicate genius on 9/11, yet you keep flogging this straw man. What a coward. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 12:04 pm GMT • 400 Words @Boris
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what they said he did.You keep making things up.Huh? His evaluation included landing. But yeah, sure they guy is lying about the part you hate but telling the truth about the part you like. Is there any better evidence that you are a complete moronic hack?
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September!The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loopYeah, professional pilots think Hanjour could have done it:http://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object - even a large one like the Pentagon - at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.
...
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there!lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon? I should have seen that coming. Do you believe the CGI people too? And the nuke guys?What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims and suggest they are in on the conspiracy. It's not bad enough that they get their lives cut short, nope. You guys have to take a shit on their ashes too.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing.
Did you come up with this yourself or is this some talking point that was just handed to you? YOu can read what was said, but the problem was not solely that Hani Hanjour could not land the plane. He could not really control the plane in flight. I'm not a pilot myself, but looking at this as a generalist, the upshot of it clearly seems to be that that Hani Hanjour did not possess even elementary plane flying skills for a small plane in August of 2001. And then in September of 2001 carried out a maneuver in a big Boeing jet that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone with years of experience.
But I was thinking about this there were four or five Arab hijackers in the plane according to the story. How would they even know which one of them flew the plane? Anybody who made a phone call wouldn't know the names of the various hijackers, would they? So they just tell a story and there's no proof whatsoever of the story anyway And then a shit eater like you, rather than just admit the obvious, that there isn't any proof of this aspect of the story, you just start making up shit to back up the story. Like you start by trying to claim that the incident where he couldn't fly a Cessna was years before 9/11. No, it was 3 weeks before 9/11!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon?
Well, I don't know. What would be idiotic about thinking that? All I said was that there is not a shred of evidence that a Boeing airliner really hit the Pentagon. At least I've never seen any.
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims
Oh, I'm maligning the victims, am I? And that really bothers you . Wanting to get at the truth of what really happened is to disrespect the victims
I can't believe you came up with that shit yourself. You've got a list of talking points that you're running through, right?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 12:45 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.You are so stupid. I already wrote this:Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence.See? You can't even fucking read.I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient. You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof," when I never even used the word. Because you are too stupid to argue honestly.
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
(Shrug.) Little children are always using big words that they have overheard adults using. It doesn't really mean that they understand what they are saying.
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what a necessary versus a sufficient condition is. Or you could understand what the beg the question fallacy is. But the problem remains that, at the key moment, you are able to NOT understand it.
Because, at the key moment, the shit eater always ends up telling you (either directly or circuitously) that the official story is proof of the official story. Never fails. Earlier you told me to go read the page on wikipedia. Well, the page on wikipedia is just a synopsis of the official story. I asked you for proof so you were just telling me that the official story is proof of the official story.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient. You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof,"
Well, that's a mischaracterization. The fact remains, you said that Mohammed Atta having a plane ticket was evidence. It was in your list of evidence.
AND NO, the fact remains: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!
I'll tell you what it is. It is SHIT. Because that is all a shit eater ever comes up with in a debate.
Just shit. Like the guy bought a plane ticket so he's the hijacker The government story is proof of the government story
You're not the first shit eater I've debated with. All you guys ever come up with is SHIT.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 1:21 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official government story. You never provided any.Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the official story? Yes or no?
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
Thanks for that Jonathan.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
The Wiz, notwithstanding his loathsome obfuscation and word mincing, can occasionally cut to the heart of the matter.
Namely, at this level of criminality, there's no such thing as a free truth.
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?;)It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable. But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.extremely salient insight JRScumbags will be scumbags.I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes there's just no other way to put it!That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear that Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little old grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerityRemember that Sam?
Oh Hello Rurik
Ursula Haverbeck, the lovely little granny which has a rap sheet longer than your arm?According to Agence France-Presse
Haverbeck is a notorious extremist who was once chaired a far-right training center shut down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda, according to AFP. She has a rap sheet and a suspended sentence for sedition.
The Zio-boot? You mean this one?
http://www.unz.com/article/what-obama-should-have-told-bibi/#comment-1239335btw I see Revusky getting into his usual foamy-mouth-eyeballs-spinning routine.
Jonathan,
fear not your hunger, it will be sated; coprophagic services are sought after at Upper Manhattan's recycling plant. What hour shall I ask them to contact you?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:09 pm GMT • 300 Words @Rurik I was reading your quote and thinking to myself, wow, what insight and pure, raw humanity from this mystery writer..
until I saw it sourced ;)
Does only German blood count?no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and children, who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monsteranyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes, every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian people for generations.
"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."
Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:
" starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_IINote the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Rotterdam May 1940? 884 civilians killed, 85,000 left homeless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_BlitzHow about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_GuernicaHow about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken to concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village was leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacreHow about Oradour-sur-Glane Jun 1944? 642 civilians murdered and -wait for it – women and children deliberately burned to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacreThere are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
Don't forget your promise to "condemn them [Nazis] with all of my breath."
• Replies: @Rurik OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased Wikipedia)this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan, not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken), but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible, whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:16 pm GMT • 100 Words @Erebus Hi,
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring in his American Pravda series.
"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents!"
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
"I'm guessing, of course "
You seem to do a lot of that. No answers to simple questions. Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain. "The Great Revusky" seems equally barren.
• Replies: @ErebusNice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?No answers to simple questions.Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories" should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:43 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop in quality as the thread progressed.Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
No one made this argument. You're such a delicate genius on 9/11, yet you keep flogging this straw man. What a coward.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz Your #335 Comment has a ihick yellow-brown rectangular frame around it. How did you achieve that?
Can't speak with 100% certainty, but I believe it's a mark of distinction from the comment moderator.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:49 pm GMT • 100 Words
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what a necessary versus a sufficient condition is.
lol. I mentioned "necessary vs. sufficient," then you read it and somehow thought you came up with it on your own and it would be a huge win for you. I'd be embarrassed and mad, too. You are all over the place, man.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:49 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky Hi, Ziofascist scumbag.
I cherish free speech.LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I hope she dies and burns in hell."But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doingAh, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?But I wonder about this.... is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism? Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But you could start.... it's not illegal... YET!
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000 killed in Aug 1944? What a surprise!
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please). And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats – well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
• Replies: @utu Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total number of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were damaged. In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and Dresden cannot be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was legally not a war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost the war. As Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by RAF in the end of August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin which eventually lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF. This is why that Battle of Britain was won by Brits. , @Jonathan RevuskyNo comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up. I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week". You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours . we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And then some."Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71, bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it. You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize Nazi aggression?"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
-Rurik 28dec15 #205
http://www.unz.com/article/no-matter-who-becomes-president-israel-wins/#comments
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw number by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany had over Warsaw in 1939.
• Replies: @Incitatus "If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945."So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think you're overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated "no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
The death of any, Warsaw and Dresden, was tragic. My remarks to Rurik intended to highlight his neglect of one case and habitual celebration of the other. See also #350. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 4:38 pm GMT • 100 Words @utu If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw number by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany had over Warsaw in 1939.
"If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945."
So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think you're overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated "no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
The death of any, Warsaw and Dresden, was tragic. My remarks to Rurik intended to highlight his neglect of one case and habitual celebration of the other. See also #350.
• Replies: @utu "So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? " - I do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the initial German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates. Warsaw and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics. The goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice that guided many actions by allies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 4:53 pm GMT • 300 Words @Incitatus
"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents!"Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger."I'm guessing, of course..."You seem to do a lot of that. No answers to simple questions. Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain. "The Great Revusky" seems equally barren.Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well.
(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.
In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?
No answers to simple questions.
Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.
Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.
Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories" should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
• Replies: @Sam Shama Did you not write this?In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI.In #303
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1563891
??
You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level? , @Incitatus"I wasn't trying."No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except, of course, preening like a chicken in heat."You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI - and than no genuine planes flew into the towers. Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes."I ignore simpleton level questions."Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton."I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."Let me refresh your memory (#304):"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."Not trying is one thing. Lying is quite another. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 5:09 pm GMT • 100 Words
An undeniable condition, on any comments section, of any article published here, has to be the Jonathan Revusky effect : a rapid devolvement into scatology.
Why Jonathan?
Your basic reading skills are suffering as well; as evident in your your awfully retarded, repetitious replies to Boris.
Has the quality of your special diet declined?P.S. : [btw Jonathan, thanks for mentioning that my approach is similar to Incitatus'. ]
• Replies: @Incitatus Prof. Graf Alexander Parsifal von Kleve would, with little doubt, diagnose the "Great Revusky" as suffering from an acute case of PPP: "The typical case is mild and limited in duration. In extraordinary instances the condition deepens and persists for years, manifested in uncontrolled anger, paranoia, infantile illusion and, of course, nearly constant confrontational obscenity."Sadly, there are no cures to PPP (Painfully Prolonged Puberty). Like me, you've probably contributed to sponsored walks raising money for research. Alas, as Revusky demonstrates, it's a long way away.
We're all rooting for you, JR. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @Erebus
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?No answers to simple questions.Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories" should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
Did you not write this?
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI.
In #303
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1563891
??You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
• Replies: @ErebusSo isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?No, one is supposed to understand what the statement says, and nothing besides. What eyewitnesses on the street may or may not have seen would not normally be covered by the word "footage".There appear to be serious problems with the available videos - FRP nose cones emerging intact on the other side of buildings, wings disappearing behind buildings, bright flashes just prior to impact marking the impact point, the lack of camera jitter in the plane's flight path. And so on. These are all readily explained with reference to CGI, but difficult otherwise. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 5:21 pm GMT • 100 Words
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques.
The "CGI planes" hypothesis is one of the dumbest ever. Lizard people don't know how to do CGI! lol at you.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus "If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945."
So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think you're overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated "no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
The death of any, Warsaw and Dresden, was tragic. My remarks to Rurik intended to highlight his neglect of one case and habitual celebration of the other. See also #350.
"So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? " – I do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the initial German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates. Warsaw and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics. The goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice that guided many actions by allies.
• Replies: @Incitatus The initial city estimate was no more than 25,000. See Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr, Nicole; Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. But believe what you wish. I'm sure many would say the Warsaw '39 and '44 estimates are also too low.There may well have been Allied malice on the part of some. But you're remiss in not recognizing the earlier Nazi cancer. Trust Adolf on the eve of Case White:
"Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!..Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all signs of compassion! ...[I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy...I have put my Death's Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly." -Adolf Hitler, address to military commanders 21 Aug 1939
I don't he cared about 'collateral damage." In fact, he seems to want it. Find a similar quote from an allied leader of similar rank and you may have a case. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 6:07 pm GMT • 300 Words @Erebus
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?No answers to simple questions.Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories" should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
"I wasn't trying."
No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except, of course, preening like a chicken in heat.
"You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers. Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes.
"I ignore simpleton level questions."
Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton.
"I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."
Let me refresh your memory (#304):
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
Not trying is one thing. Lying is quite another.
• Replies: @ErebusYou don't really put much effort into anything, do you?I put my effort in 15-13 years ago. Today, indeed, I am putting less effort in. Much less in fact, but that's because the case has effectively closed.Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers?To be sure, I have no reliable information on this, though one need not overexercise their imagination to come up with several possibilities - from sipping MaiTais in their villas in the S. Pacific, to entombed at the bottom of the N. Atlantic, and everything in between.But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.You seem to have the same reading comprehension problems as Sharma. (See my comment to him above)Put another way, explaining a theory is not the same as using a theory to explain what you see.
Anyhow, obviously you have no material points to make. You're using, word for word, the same arguments I've been hearing for 15 yrs. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 6:10 pm GMT • 200 Words @Incitatus No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000 killed in Aug 1944? What a surprise!
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please). And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total number of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were damaged. In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and Dresden cannot be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was legally not a war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost the war. As Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by RAF in the end of August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin which eventually lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF. This is why that Battle of Britain was won by Brits.
• Replies: @Incitatus"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind."In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage" from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945. Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 6:35 pm GMT • 200 Words @utu "So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? " - I do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the initial German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates. Warsaw and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics. The goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice that guided many actions by allies.
The initial city estimate was no more than 25,000. See Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr, Nicole; Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. But believe what you wish. I'm sure many would say the Warsaw '39 and '44 estimates are also too low.
There may well have been Allied malice on the part of some. But you're remiss in not recognizing the earlier Nazi cancer. Trust Adolf on the eve of Case White:
"Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!..Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all signs of compassion! [I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy I have put my Death's Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly." -Adolf Hitler, address to military commanders 21 Aug 1939
I don't he cared about 'collateral damage." In fact, he seems to want it. Find a similar quote from an allied leader of similar rank and you may have a case.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT • 400 Words @Incitatus No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000 killed in Aug 1944? What a surprise!
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please). And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?
WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!
What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Anyway, I've been thinking . I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up. I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week". You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of the Fourth Reich .
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours . we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
• Replies: @Incitatus Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated - well , it's unthinkable!I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week." But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline). , @Sam Shama Just a reminder: morning dosage on an empty stomach, prior to personal recycling.
wish you a good night now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 7:08 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline Sweeney,It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
It's odious how the victims become "invented characters" to fools like you based on zero evidence.
Here are some pictures of the dead woman whose memory you tarnish:
http://www.bettyong.org/photos.htm
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 7:11 pm GMT
saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!)
Then you should have no problem producing the quote.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 9:00 pm GMT • 100 Words
saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!)
Then you should have no problem producing the quote.
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value) "His purchase of the tickets".
You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
• Replies: @utu JR, what do you think of this:'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite the fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among colleagues
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783981/Vaughn-Allex-airport-worker-checked-Pentagon-9-11-hijackers-reveals-15-years-guilt.html , @Boris
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official storyAs I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for some reason. Your behavior is downright weird. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 9:27 pm GMT • 100 Words @Sam Shama An undeniable condition, on any comments section, of any article published here, has to be the Jonathan Revusky effect : a rapid devolvement into scatology.
Why Jonathan?
Your basic reading skills are suffering as well; as evident in your your awfully retarded, repetitious replies to Boris.
Has the quality of your special diet declined?P.S. : [btw Jonathan, thanks for mentioning that my approach is similar to Incitatus'. ]
Prof. Graf Alexander Parsifal von Kleve would, with little doubt, diagnose the "Great Revusky" as suffering from an acute case of PPP: "The typical case is mild and limited in duration. In extraordinary instances the condition deepens and persists for years, manifested in uncontrolled anger, paranoia, infantile illusion and, of course, nearly constant confrontational obscenity."
Sadly, there are no cures to PPP (Painfully Prolonged Puberty). Like me, you've probably contributed to sponsored walks raising money for research. Alas, as Revusky demonstrates, it's a long way away.
We're all rooting for you, JR.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 10:19 pm GMT • 200 Words @utu Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total number of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were damaged. In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and Dresden cannot be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was legally not a war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost the war. As Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by RAF in the end of August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin which eventually lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF. This is why that Battle of Britain was won by Brits.
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."
See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind.
"In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."
How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage" from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.
No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind – she was guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by – you guessed it – a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945. Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
• Replies: @Sam Shama Hi Incitatus,
At about 40% still on Shirer; something that struck me was the methodical and unemotional manner in which Hitler and Goering went about purging their own ranks in the SA, when they became a hindrance in their path to winning the Wehrmacht's support. At least Rohm, perverted though he was, had the courage to defy his executioners to the very end. , @utu "How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians." - It was the other way around. People were killed during 2 months of uprising. In the early stage of uprising there were many people in some quarters (like Wola) of Warsaw massacred. But the majority of destruction of the real estate was done by looting and demolition teams after the whole population of Warsaw was evacuated in the beginning of October 1944. The fighting and aerial and artillery bombardment are responsible for about half of that 85% number. Certainly treatment given to Warsaw, an abandoned city was a sure sign of Hitler's madness in the finals stages of the III Reich.It is claimed that 50,000 people of Wola were executed in the first days (August 1944) of uprising by Russian Kaminski's SS brigade and Dirlewanger SS brigade consisting of criminals (dirty many dozens in Americanese). There were also executions in the course of fighting but not on the mass scale of Wola massacre. Majority of deaths were collateral damage in Americanese.
The example of Warsaw (both 1939 and 1944) can be a very strong argument for much higher casualty rate in Dresden. The current number of 25,000 arrived by collusion of British and German historians is too low probably by factor of five. The history of history never ends. Perhaps after Brexit German historians will not have to be so accommodating to their British counterparts who would really like to reduce the casualty rate in Dresden to that of Coventry.
It was RAF that started bombing cities with civilians being their primary targets (August 1940). Not w/o reason V in V-1 and V-2 stands for retaliation/reprisal. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Incitatus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 11, 2016 at 11:59 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up. I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week". You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours . we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated – well , it's unthinkable!
I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week." But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline).
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyAgain, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated – well , it's unthinkable!Uhh, look, shit eater, here's the situation. You're a shit eater. You're surely in competition for this week's shit eater of the week. You could dislodge Boris, who is the current reigning shit eater of the week.What this means, the fact that you're a shit eater, is that you NEVER think for yourself. Whatever they tell you on the TV is the truth. That's what it means to be a shit eater. Like if you read the Orwell novel 1984, you have the 2 minutes hate. They show a picture of the person you're supposed to hate and all the brainwashed shit eaters scream how much they hate the person.
Like many other things in 1984, this was quite prescient. They tell you that you are supposed to hate somebody, like Gaddafi or Saddam, or whoever, or now it's Vladimir Putin... and all the shit eaters like you will scream how much you hate the person. Am I wrong? You are not the first A-1-A shit eater I have interacted with. I understand the shit eater mentality.
So they show you a picture of some old lady that you are supposed to hate and so you dutifuly hate her. And you gloat that she was sentenced to prison. Note the projection here. You say Ursula Haverbeck is a hate monger, but of course, you are the hater. They tell you who you're supposed to hate and you hate that person.
Because you're a shit eater. A Ziofascist shit eater, of the same sort who would gloat that Rachel Corrie was killed for trying to helping a Palestinian family.
The other aspect of this is that, as a shit eater, you don't really value freedom of speech at all, because you never had an idea in your head that runs counter to the established power structure paradigm. So when you are told that somebody is a criminal for saying something that the current power structure doesn't like, that doesn't bother you, since you never had a dissenting idea in your head. And probably never will have one.
I mean, as a champion shit eater, you've never actually thought for yourself about anything. You've never expressed an original or dissenting idea in your entire life. Never. If they tell you that two planes took down three steel framed buildings, you believe it and get angry if somebody says that is impossible.
The third aspect of this is that you are not just a shit eater. You are a Ziofascist shit eater. So you feel this great identification with this Zionist power structure and you gloat over their ability to imprison this old lady. You guys are drunk on your power. Of course, you yourself have no particular power, but you have this vicarious identification with that power structure. This is the fascist mentality. You worship a power structure because it makes you, a total worthless nobody, feel like you're sombody.
Now, on one point, you are correct, Ursula Haverbeck is not herself that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I mean, the Ziofascist power structure that you adore and feel identification with, it has caused the destruction of entire countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of deaths with millions of lives destroyed. So one little old lady in a jail cell unjustly isn't that big a deal compared to that.
It's that she's a symbol nonetheless.
The problem that people like you have, I mean the typical Ziofascist scumbag shit eater, is that you don't really understand that other people are not as vicious and vindictive as you are, so you guys make these psychopathic wisecracks about this or about Rachel Corrie and you don't quite understand how much disgust you elicit in decent, ordinary people. You just don't comprehend it.
And then, when there eventually is a pretty severe backlash against your Ziofascist scumbag behavior, which I think is getting inevitable, you're going to be there with this: "Oy vey, why do they always hate us.... we're such sweet wonderful people..." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- James Kabala says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 12:48 am GMT @SolontoCroesus
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000 – were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?1. estimates of Dresden dead are tendentious
2. not all those killed in Warsaw were Jews: only Jews count. If non-Jews swell the kill-count, that diverts attention from teh eternal victim ©
3. Real he-man Jews deride Warsaw Jews for not being sufficiently he-man. Best not to talk about it.
4. Auschwitz has a more established brand.
5. No gas chambers in Warsaw. Epic fail.I think you misunderstood his points in every respect.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 1:29 am GMT • 100 Words @Incitatus
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind."In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage" from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945. Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
Hi Incitatus,
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
At about 40% still on Shirer; something that struck me was the methodical and unemotional manner in which Hitler and Goering went about purging their own ranks in the SA, when they became a hindrance in their path to winning the Wehrmacht's support. At least Rohm, perverted though he was, had the courage to defy his executioners to the very end.
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 1:37 am GMT @Jonathan Revusky
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you are!What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up. I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week". You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours . we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
Just a reminder: morning dosage on an empty stomach, prior to personal recycling.
wish you a good night now.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:01 am GMT • 300 Words @Incitatus
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind."In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage" from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945. Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
"How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians." – It was the other way around. People were killed during 2 months of uprising. In the early stage of uprising there were many people in some quarters (like Wola) of Warsaw massacred. But the majority of destruction of the real estate was done by looting and demolition teams after the whole population of Warsaw was evacuated in the beginning of October 1944. The fighting and aerial and artillery bombardment are responsible for about half of that 85% number. Certainly treatment given to Warsaw, an abandoned city was a sure sign of Hitler's madness in the finals stages of the III Reich.
It is claimed that 50,000 people of Wola were executed in the first days (August 1944) of uprising by Russian Kaminski's SS brigade and Dirlewanger SS brigade consisting of criminals (dirty many dozens in Americanese). There were also executions in the course of fighting but not on the mass scale of Wola massacre. Majority of deaths were collateral damage in Americanese.
The example of Warsaw (both 1939 and 1944) can be a very strong argument for much higher casualty rate in Dresden. The current number of 25,000 arrived by collusion of British and German historians is too low probably by factor of five. The history of history never ends. Perhaps after Brexit German historians will not have to be so accommodating to their British counterparts who would really like to reduce the casualty rate in Dresden to that of Coventry.
It was RAF that started bombing cities with civilians being their primary targets (August 1940). Not w/o reason V in V-1 and V-2 stands for retaliation/reprisal.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- NosytheDuke says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT @Wizard of Oz Ron
You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which can be found here:
http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories
A bit like reviewing or recommending a movie, that you haven't watched.
I must admit though that you have a decided flair for the consistently proud display of your ignorance.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Not at all. It is much more like telling someone who is about to start research on his doctoral thesis or is already under way on what he regards as a promising reading list "here is another body of research and writing on the subject that you may not have considered" (and Daniel Pipes is not a scholar that RU would be likely to have near the top of his go to list). Moreover, if you read what I wrote before emitting you would have understood that I was saying that, whereas I couldn't assess the merits of the books, to which I merely drew attention, I had read some of his work in article form. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:27 am GMT @Jonathan Revusky
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value) "His purchase of the tickets".saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!)Then you should have no problem producing the quote.You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
JR, what do you think of this:
'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite the fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among colleagues
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyJR, what do you think of this:LOL. That's just bullshit.They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy was wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for sure hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/245388/-
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by co-workers because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets, didn't they? "Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie on TV, so I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on...."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked on the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again, just to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
Anyway, to answer your question (again) this kind of stuff is all bullshit. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:31 am GMT • 100 Words @Sam Shama Did you not write this?
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI.In #303
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1563891
??
You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
No, one is supposed to understand what the statement says, and nothing besides. What eyewitnesses on the street may or may not have seen would not normally be covered by the word "footage".
There appear to be serious problems with the available videos – FRP nose cones emerging intact on the other side of buildings, wings disappearing behind buildings, bright flashes just prior to impact marking the impact point, the lack of camera jitter in the plane's flight path. And so on. These are all readily explained with reference to CGI, but difficult otherwise.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT • 200 Words
The biggest hoax evererpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam . Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy – achieved without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .
This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .
" In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)
THE GREEN PERIL
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
• Replies: @utu "The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam." - Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is Jeff Gates? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
"
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic expert out of the same offices that used to house the Soviet expert ,painted them green removed the red markings and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly what happened .)
- Erebus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 3:27 am GMT • 200 Words @Incitatus
"I wasn't trying."No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except, of course, preening like a chicken in heat."You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate. Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI - and than no genuine planes flew into the towers. Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes."I ignore simpleton level questions."Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton."I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."Let me refresh your memory (#304):"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."Not trying is one thing. Lying is quite another.You don't really put much effort into anything, do you?
I put my effort in 15-13 years ago. Today, indeed, I am putting less effort in. Much less in fact, but that's because the case has effectively closed.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers?
To be sure, I have no reliable information on this, though one need not overexercise their imagination to come up with several possibilities – from sipping MaiTais in their villas in the S. Pacific, to entombed at the bottom of the N. Atlantic, and everything in between.
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
You seem to have the same reading comprehension problems as Sharma. (See my comment to him above)
Put another way, explaining a theory is not the same as using a theory to explain what you see.
Anyhow, obviously you have no material points to make. You're using, word for word, the same arguments I've been hearing for 15 yrs.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 4:22 am GMT @KA The biggest hoax evererpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam . Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy - achieved without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .
This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .
" In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)
THE GREEN PERIL
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
"
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic expert out of the same offices that used to house the Soviet expert ,painted them green removed the red markings and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly what happened .)"The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam." – Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is Jeff Gates?
• Replies: @KA Thanks Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 7:36 am GMT • 100 Words @NosytheDuke A bit like reviewing or recommending a movie, that you haven't watched.
I must admit though that you have a decided flair for the consistently proud display of your ignorance.
Not at all. It is much more like telling someone who is about to start research on his doctoral thesis or is already under way on what he regards as a promising reading list "here is another body of research and writing on the subject that you may not have considered" (and Daniel Pipes is not a scholar that RU would be likely to have near the top of his go to list). Moreover, if you read what I wrote before emitting you would have understood that I was saying that, whereas I couldn't assess the merits of the books, to which I merely drew attention, I had read some of his work in article form.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 9:35 am GMT • 300 Words @utu JR, what do you think of this:
'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite the fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among colleagues
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783981/Vaughn-Allex-airport-worker-checked-Pentagon-9-11-hijackers-reveals-15-years-guilt.html
JR, what do you think of this:
LOL. That's just bullshit.
They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy was wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for sure hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/245388/-
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by co-workers because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets, didn't they? "Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie on TV, so I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on ."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked on the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again, just to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
Anyway, to answer your question (again) this kind of stuff is all bullshit.
• Replies: @Boris Of course everyone else is lying according to the person who has lied brazenly multiple times about comments written on this very page.I look forward to jonny's next Unz.com article "The Shitting Shit-Eaters and the Shitty Shit They Eat: How Boris Thinks a Plane Ticket Proves That Atta Wasn't a Hologram-Lizard, LOL!"
Professional. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 10:04 am GMT • 700 Words @Incitatus Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated - well , it's unthinkable!
I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week." But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline).
Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated – well , it's unthinkable!
Uhh, look, shit eater, here's the situation. You're a shit eater. You're surely in competition for this week's shit eater of the week. You could dislodge Boris, who is the current reigning shit eater of the week.
What this means, the fact that you're a shit eater, is that you NEVER think for yourself. Whatever they tell you on the TV is the truth. That's what it means to be a shit eater. Like if you read the Orwell novel 1984, you have the 2 minutes hate. They show a picture of the person you're supposed to hate and all the brainwashed shit eaters scream how much they hate the person.
Like many other things in 1984, this was quite prescient. They tell you that you are supposed to hate somebody, like Gaddafi or Saddam, or whoever, or now it's Vladimir Putin and all the shit eaters like you will scream how much you hate the person. Am I wrong? You are not the first A-1-A shit eater I have interacted with. I understand the shit eater mentality.
So they show you a picture of some old lady that you are supposed to hate and so you dutifuly hate her. And you gloat that she was sentenced to prison. Note the projection here. You say Ursula Haverbeck is a hate monger, but of course, you are the hater. They tell you who you're supposed to hate and you hate that person.
Because you're a shit eater. A Ziofascist shit eater, of the same sort who would gloat that Rachel Corrie was killed for trying to helping a Palestinian family.
The other aspect of this is that, as a shit eater, you don't really value freedom of speech at all, because you never had an idea in your head that runs counter to the established power structure paradigm. So when you are told that somebody is a criminal for saying something that the current power structure doesn't like, that doesn't bother you, since you never had a dissenting idea in your head. And probably never will have one.
I mean, as a champion shit eater, you've never actually thought for yourself about anything. You've never expressed an original or dissenting idea in your entire life. Never. If they tell you that two planes took down three steel framed buildings, you believe it and get angry if somebody says that is impossible.
The third aspect of this is that you are not just a shit eater. You are a Ziofascist shit eater. So you feel this great identification with this Zionist power structure and you gloat over their ability to imprison this old lady. You guys are drunk on your power. Of course, you yourself have no particular power, but you have this vicarious identification with that power structure. This is the fascist mentality. You worship a power structure because it makes you, a total worthless nobody, feel like you're sombody.
Now, on one point, you are correct, Ursula Haverbeck is not herself that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. I mean, the Ziofascist power structure that you adore and feel identification with, it has caused the destruction of entire countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of deaths with millions of lives destroyed. So one little old lady in a jail cell unjustly isn't that big a deal compared to that.
It's that she's a symbol nonetheless.
The problem that people like you have, I mean the typical Ziofascist scumbag shit eater, is that you don't really understand that other people are not as vicious and vindictive as you are, so you guys make these psychopathic wisecracks about this or about Rachel Corrie and you don't quite understand how much disgust you elicit in decent, ordinary people. You just don't comprehend it.
And then, when there eventually is a pretty severe backlash against your Ziofascist scumbag behavior, which I think is getting inevitable, you're going to be there with this: "Oy vey, why do they always hate us . we're such sweet wonderful people "
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 12:37 pm GMT @utu "The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam." - Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is Jeff Gates?
Thanks
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 1:20 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value) "His purchase of the tickets".saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!)Then you should have no problem producing the quote.You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree–and have from the beginning–that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyAs I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that constitute proof of the official story ?And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.Well, you see, there you go again...Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the week. BUT... let me make something clear to you, champ....
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion. , @KA "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14) The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league . Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda . The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy . It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 1:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering" or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading your readers.
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*?
I rest on my laurels wiz
we've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in an attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any issue you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to everyone here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Now why, I ask you, would I ever feel the inclination so qualify myself to the likes of you, eh?
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Unfofortunately your resting on your laurels means we've never seen them.I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers' ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional laurels. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
JR, what do you think of this:LOL. That's just bullshit.They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy was wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for sure hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/245388/-
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by co-workers because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets, didn't they? "Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie on TV, so I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on...."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked on the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again, just to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
Anyway, to answer your question (again) this kind of stuff is all bullshit.
Of course everyone else is lying according to the person who has lied brazenly multiple times about comments written on this very page.
I look forward to jonny's next Unz.com article "The Shitting Shit-Eaters and the Shitty Shit They Eat: How Boris Thinks a Plane Ticket Proves That Atta Wasn't a Hologram-Lizard, LOL!"
Professional.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:26 pm GMT • 500 Words @Incitatus
"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:"...starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_IINote the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Rotterdam May 1940? 884 civilians killed, 85,000 left homeless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_BlitzHow about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_GuernicaHow about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken to concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village was leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacreHow about Oradour-sur-Glane Jun 1944? 642 civilians murdered and -wait for it - women and children deliberately burned to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacreThere are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
Don't forget your promise to "condemn them [Nazis] with all of my breath."
OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased Wikipedia)
this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan, not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken), but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, – they defied the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible, whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors
• Agree: SolontoCroesus • Replies: @utu Very good comment. , @SolontoCroesusa lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actorshttp://rappnews.com/2016/05/19/as-the-world-turns-and-the-stones-speak/148387/(Max Blumenthal played Adam, aka "guys just wanna have fun" in a recent presentation of John Henry's play.) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All CommentsJohn Henry's "Arguing with God." . . . reenacts Old Testament stories to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature and explores the psychology of how empires are built by "Chosen People," "good guys" who believe they have the moral right to use military force against "bad guys." Produced in the dramatic outdoor setting of hand-laid stone, which Henry built himself, "Arguing with God" depicts the inevitable conflict between power and justice.
The cast is 50-actor strong, with many of the leading roles played by [Henry's neighbors and friends]. .
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:33 pm GMT • 200 Words @Boris
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official storyAs I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"
WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that constitute proof of the official story ?
And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.
Well, you see, there you go again
Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the week. BUT let me make something clear to you, champ .
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion.
• Replies: @Boris Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory. I've never seen a ticket for a CGI plane. Have you? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:47 pm GMT • 300 Words @L.K Well, Rurik,
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is here to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or free speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to be applied in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it... in fact, people are not allowed to even know there is a debate on the holohoax.Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:Most people are led to believe - I was one of them - in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above.
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking, we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking, of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one, but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such, did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional account is an extreme exaggeration.
This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier, which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdfhttp://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
Hey L.K.,
holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to me
but this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in senior positions in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that Goldman Sachs was only an investment bank until 2009. , @Sam ShamaI believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.Rurik,
[...]
But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust, was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life, [even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all] i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
cheers. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT • 400 Words @Boris
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official storyAs I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for some reason. Your behavior is downright weird."The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14) The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league . Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda . The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy . It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.
• Replies: @BorisPrinting a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right leagueYou are falling for Jonny's schtick:Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
A bit more than a ticket, right? You can follow the sources as you see fit. From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good. I always keep an open mind to new evidence, though. Keep in mind that saying "But that could have been faked!" is not evidence. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism, including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq and a second individual at the mosque.[42]After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return until 1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his thesis, telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I don't want to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not return to Hamburg for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just 18 months after his first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly unusual and unlikely for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon. Also, three months is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When Atta returned, he claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic to erase evidence of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998, after disappearing for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious and aloof" to those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long. The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg, near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar, and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3] After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted. Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training. Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000, and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January 18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000. Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15] Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July 6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from HuffmanAtta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December 22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing 757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting 3,836 miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah off at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled via Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne, New Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number "linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15] Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in traffic court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same day, Israeli Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they said were planning an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain, the others being Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals, and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International Jetport, where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air (US Airways Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland, Mohamed Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which required his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B, but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured area, go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been overlooked that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct detail of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a call from Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the attacks were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through security again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59 am, the plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service would be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and the aircraft began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will, written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter".[86]
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that constitute proof of the official story ?And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.Well, you see, there you go again...Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the week. BUT... let me make something clear to you, champ....
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion.
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory. I've never seen a ticket for a CGI plane. Have you?
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyWell, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of the planes with the buildings.Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving the video fakery theory, the answer is... NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane at a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that time. Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour and then they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a representative of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight to your destination. (They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport to compensate you... been there, done that.... )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight was very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but in Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video fo the plane hitting the tower is not fake -- this is another shit eater brain fart on your part for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently. So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building, no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane definitely hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely on a plane, there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one Mohammed Atta was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different plane. And it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy. You say: "He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you want to prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit eater statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement if you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
That's my tentative judgment anyway. Others are free to weigh in on that... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik Hey L.K.,
holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to mebut this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in senior positions in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that Goldman Sachs was only an investment bank until 2009.
• Replies: @Rurik Ok, I'll play..but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled by Jews (for Jews ; )there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
here they are
http://propertypak.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/53-1.jpeg
I don't see Rubin in the pic but he was the main architect Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 3:51 pm GMT • 100 Words @Rurik
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural engineering*?I rest on my laurels wizwe've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in an attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any issue you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to everyone here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Now why, I ask you, would I ever feel the inclination so qualify myself to the likes of you, eh?
Unfofortunately your resting on your laurels means we've never seen them.
I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers' ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional laurels.
• Replies: @RurikAfter all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority ...you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled demolition. Duhand I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal (and concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. - If I didn't, then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on the Internet. ;) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 4:58 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in senior positions in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that Goldman Sachs was only an investment bank until 2009.
Ok, I'll play..
but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?
well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled by Jews (for Jews ; )
there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
here they are
http://propertypak.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/53-1.jpeg
I don't see Rubin in the pic but he was the main architect
• Replies: @Borisyou see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled by Jews (for Jews ; )The federal reserve is owned by Jews? The more you know... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 5:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Wizard of Oz Unfofortunately your resting on your laurels means we've never seen them.
I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers' ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional laurels.
After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority
you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled demolition. Duh
and I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal (and concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. – If I didn't, then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on the Internet.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I almost pay you a compliment at #201 on The Saker's 9/11 thread :-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 5:13 pm GMT • 2,200 Words @KA "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14) The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league . Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda . The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy . It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
You are falling for Jonny's schtick:
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
[MORE]
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism, including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq and a second individual at the mosque.[42]
After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return until 1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his thesis, telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I don't want to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not return to Hamburg for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just 18 months after his first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly unusual and unlikely for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon. Also, three months is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When Atta returned, he claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic to erase evidence of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998, after disappearing for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious and aloof" to those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long. The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg, near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar, and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3] After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted. Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training. Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000, and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January 18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000. Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15] Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July 6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from HuffmanAtta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December 22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing 757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting 3,836 miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah off at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled via Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne, New Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number "linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15] Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in traffic court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same day, Israeli Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they said were planning an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain, the others being Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals, and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International Jetport, where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air (US Airways Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland, Mohamed Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which required his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B, but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured area, go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been overlooked that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct detail of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a call from Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the attacks were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through security again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59 am, the plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service would be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and the aircraft began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will, written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter".[86]
A bit more than a ticket, right? You can follow the sources as you see fit. From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good. I always keep an open mind to new evidence, though. Keep in mind that saying "But that could have been faked!" is not evidence. • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's very uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just offering a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course absolutely typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste.... Mehh..... Nah....
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to... Let's just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13.I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It wasn't a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people behind this mighta been on a tight budget... rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from the most cheap-ass rental company there was...
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
" He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!???? " Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT • 600 Words @Boris Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory. I've never seen a ticket for a CGI plane. Have you?
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.
Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of the planes with the buildings.
Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving the video fakery theory, the answer is NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane at a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that time. Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour and then they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a representative of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight to your destination. (They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport to compensate you been there, done that . )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight was very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but in Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video fo the plane hitting the tower is not fake - this is another shit eater brain fart on your part for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently. So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building, no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane definitely hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely on a plane, there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one Mohammed Atta was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different plane. And it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy. You say: "He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you want to prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit eater statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement if you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
That's my tentative judgment anyway. Others are free to weigh in on that
• Replies: @BorisHowever, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakeryYeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses. Is there any stupid conspiracy you DON'T believe? Let's try to keep the lengths of these posts manageable. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 5:34 pm GMT @Rurik OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased Wikipedia)
this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan, not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken), but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible, whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors...
Very good comment.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 5:47 pm GMT • 300 Words @Boris
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right leagueYou are falling for Jonny's schtick:Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
A bit more than a ticket, right? You can follow the sources as you see fit. From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good. I always keep an open mind to new evidence, though. Keep in mind that saying "But that could have been faked!" is not evidence.
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism, including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq and a second individual at the mosque.[42]After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return until 1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his thesis, telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I don't want to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not return to Hamburg for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just 18 months after his first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly unusual and unlikely for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon. Also, three months is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When Atta returned, he claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic to erase evidence of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998, after disappearing for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious and aloof" to those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long. The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg, near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar, and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3] After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted. Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training. Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000, and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January 18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000. Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15] Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July 6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from HuffmanAtta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December 22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing 757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting 3,836 miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah off at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled via Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne, New Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number "linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15] Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in traffic court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same day, Israeli Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they said were planning an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain, the others being Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals, and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International Jetport, where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air (US Airways Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland, Mohamed Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which required his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B, but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured area, go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been overlooked that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct detail of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a call from Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the attacks were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through security again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59 am, the plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service would be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and the aircraft began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will, written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter".[86]
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's very uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.
I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just offering a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course absolutely typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste . Mehh .. Nah .
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.
What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to Let's just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13.
I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It wasn't a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.
Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people behind this mighta been on a tight budget rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from the most cheap-ass rental company there was
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
" He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!???? "
• Replies: @Boris"He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!????"You think the planes were CGI. Your opinion is worthless. I shall now only respond to you with dismissive YouTube clips.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9LdTkR85Q Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- SolontoCroesus says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 6:03 pm GMT • 200 Words @Rurik OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased Wikipedia)
this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan, not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken), but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible, whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors...
a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors
http://rappnews.com/2016/05/19/as-the-world-turns-and-the-stones-speak/148387/
John Henry's "Arguing with God." . . . reenacts Old Testament stories to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature and explores the psychology of how empires are built by "Chosen People," "good guys" who believe they have the moral right to use military force against "bad guys." Produced in the dramatic outdoor setting of hand-laid stone, which Henry built himself, "Arguing with God" depicts the inevitable conflict between power and justice.
The cast is 50-actor strong, with many of the leading roles played by [Henry's neighbors and friends]. .
(Max Blumenthal played Adam, aka "guys just wanna have fun" in a recent presentation of John Henry's play.)
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" (MUST-READ) :: News From Underground says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 6:04 pm GMT
[ ] Read More: [ ]
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm GMT @Rurik Ok, I'll play..
but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled by Jews (for Jews ; )there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
here they are
http://propertypak.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/53-1.jpeg
I don't see Rubin in the pic but he was the main architect
you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled by Jews (for Jews ; )
The federal reserve is owned by Jews? The more you know
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 6:53 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of the planes with the buildings.Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving the video fakery theory, the answer is... NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane at a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that time. Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour and then they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a representative of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight to your destination. (They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport to compensate you... been there, done that.... )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight was very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but in Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video fo the plane hitting the tower is not fake -- this is another shit eater brain fart on your part for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently. So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building, no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane definitely hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely on a plane, there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one Mohammed Atta was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different plane. And it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy. You say: "He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you want to prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit eater statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement if you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
That's my tentative judgment anyway. Others are free to weigh in on that...
However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses. Is there any stupid conspiracy you DON'T believe? Let's try to keep the lengths of these posts manageable.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyYeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
However, the onus is logically on you to present some evidence for this. Do you have any? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 7:05 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's very uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just offering a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course absolutely typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste.... Mehh..... Nah....
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to... Let's just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car, which was returned on August 13.I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It wasn't a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people behind this mighta been on a tight budget... rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from the most cheap-ass rental company there was...
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
" He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!???? "
"He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!????"
You think the planes were CGI. Your opinion is worthless. I shall now only respond to you with dismissive YouTube clips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9LdTkR85Q
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyYou think the planes were CGI.Well, you get all testy because supposedly I'm misquoting you (though I don't see where) and you call me a liar and all that. No possibility in your mind that I misread what you said. No, I must be willfully lying. Except I'm not. If I misquoted something you said, I can tell you it was an honest mistake'.Anyway, I never stated that I was certain the planes were pure CGI. Neither did Erebus. What I said was that I was fairly certain that no hijacked Boeing airliners hit any buildings. Possibly some other aircraft did, like a military drone. I'm just not sure.
So when you say above that I think the planes were CGI, you are saying something that I never said exactly.
But, look, this is where we're at. You say the official story is a correct version of what happened. The natural question is what the best evidence for this is. You claimed that this was a stupid question! But that, of course, was champion shit eater nonsense.
Asking what the best evidence is, that's the most natural question there is. It's not a stupid thing to ask. So, if you admit (and I think you have tacitly admitted it) that Atta possessing a plane ticket is not really of any evidentiary value, then what have you got?
Again: what is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion, that the official US government story is truthful?
In particular, a key part of the story is that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, and that was used as the cassus belli for a war that was launched. What specifically is the best evidence available that 9/11 had anything to do with faroff Afghanistan?
We're still in Afghanistan. So it's still a very relevant, topical question and quoting long extracts of.... SHIT.... from wikipedia telling us that Mohammed Atta rented a Ford Escort or whatever other irrelevant crap they are trying to snow us with... -- that doesn't cut it man, that is decidedly unserious, dude. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 7:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @Boris
However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakeryYeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses. Is there any stupid conspiracy you DON'T believe? Let's try to keep the lengths of these posts manageable.Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
However, the onus is logically on you to present some evidence for this. Do you have any?
• Replies: @BorisHundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Millions of people live in New York.Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word. :) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 7:41 pm GMT • 200 Words @Boris
"He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS NEED!!!!????"You think the planes were CGI. Your opinion is worthless. I shall now only respond to you with dismissive YouTube clips.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9LdTkR85Q
You think the planes were CGI.
Well, you get all testy because supposedly I'm misquoting you (though I don't see where) and you call me a liar and all that. No possibility in your mind that I misread what you said. No, I must be willfully lying. Except I'm not. If I misquoted something you said, I can tell you it was an honest mistake'.
Anyway, I never stated that I was certain the planes were pure CGI. Neither did Erebus. What I said was that I was fairly certain that no hijacked Boeing airliners hit any buildings. Possibly some other aircraft did, like a military drone. I'm just not sure.
So when you say above that I think the planes were CGI, you are saying something that I never said exactly.
But, look, this is where we're at. You say the official story is a correct version of what happened. The natural question is what the best evidence for this is. You claimed that this was a stupid question! But that, of course, was champion shit eater nonsense.
Asking what the best evidence is, that's the most natural question there is. It's not a stupid thing to ask. So, if you admit (and I think you have tacitly admitted it) that Atta possessing a plane ticket is not really of any evidentiary value, then what have you got?
Again: what is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion, that the official US government story is truthful?
In particular, a key part of the story is that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, and that was used as the cassus belli for a war that was launched. What specifically is the best evidence available that 9/11 had anything to do with faroff Afghanistan?
We're still in Afghanistan. So it's still a very relevant, topical question and quoting long extracts of . SHIT . from wikipedia telling us that Mohammed Atta rented a Ford Escort or whatever other irrelevant crap they are trying to snow us with - that doesn't cut it man, that is decidedly unserious, dude.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Boris says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 12, 2016 at 9:09 pm GMT • 400 Words @Jonathan Revusky
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
However, the onus is logically on you to present some evidence for this. Do you have any?
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either–it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word.
• Replies: @KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.htmlStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored? , @Jonathan Revusky
(Sigh....)Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Millions of people live in New York.
You really are such a dishonest shit eater, dude. The question is not how many people live in New York. Sure, there are millions of people in New York, but just for starters, how many of those people at a given point in time have a clear line of sight to be looking at the right point on the building? Like, some people are sitting in a car and only have a view of the car in front of them basically. Or they are in an office with no window or a window that just has a view of the next building....
Of those who could be looking at the building, how many of them actually were looking in that direction? I mean, people are busy, they have things to do. They have their work and so on. They're not all just staring at a building thinking a plane is going to crash into it, you know. The people living it in real time don't know a plane is going to crash into a building, so they wouldn't be looking in that direction. Especially the first building that was allegedly hit, if you just happened to be looking that direction and see it, it would be a huge happenstance sort of thing, no? But even the second one.... who is going to be staring at the other building, thinking that ANOTHER plane is going to hit that one?
I simply posed a legitimate question, which is how many people claim they saw a plane hit a building -- and, of course, I mean, NOT on TV! I don't know the answer to the question, honestly. I think it's quite a low number, frankly. I've heard it said that it's easy to find somebody who knows somebody who saw a plane hit a building, but it's pretty much impossible to find a person who themselves saw it happen. Probably some people say they saw it direct but then if you press them, they admit that they saw it on the TV like everybody else.
Anyway, you said "hundreds of people saw this". Where did you get that figure, I wonder...
Oh shit.... I see.... You pulled it out of your ass. You just made it up!
Gee, that's pretty deplorable really, you know. Just to be making up facts in what is supposed to be a serious conversation.
DAMN! YOU JUST MADE THAT UP!!! THAT IS REALLY COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
YOU REALLY ARE A LITTLE LYING SHIT EATING BASTARD!!!
Now, I do have to say that I think I have expressed myself on this before.... I don't like liars. It's really not just some pretense. I really really do not like liars LIKE YOU. I really really don't! And I particularly don't like it when a pathological liar who just makes up shit repeatedly calls ME a LIAR!
That is really pretty scummy and is completely unacceptable.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building.OH, GOOD GRIEF..... WTF is your problem? Did your momma repeatedly drop you when you were little? I mean, on the head?Uhh, yeah, right. Crashing a plane into a building is so damned easy. Or getting somebody to fly a plane into a building is easy.... Sheesh....
You know, really, I honestly don't think so.... I do not think the Israeli civil service pay scale is quite good enough to get anybody to fly a plane into a building....
But hold on, that's it! I think you've got this week's shit eater of the week award wrapped up!
"Why make a fake video? It's just so easy to get people to fly planes into a building for real! No problem!!!!"
Shit, I think you surpassed yourself. That is really champion shit eater bullshit! SUPERSTAR YOU ARE!!!
I knew you had talent, but my god, this is epoch making. I can't believe I am really conversing with such a fucking idiot. I mean, you really must be one in a million! YES, it's just so easy to fly a plane into a building, or convince somebody to fly a plane into a building!!!
I guess that's why there are no stuntmen working in Hollywood. If you need a scene where somebody falls off a tall building to their death, why pay stuntmen or special effects people to fake the scene??? NO!!!! You just pay somebody to jump off the building to their death for real, because THAT'S EASIER!!!
MY GOD! YOU JUST MADE MY DAY! YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! BAW HA HAAAAAH!!!!!
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best.Okay, dude, you have made me laugh and I should thank you for that. BUT.... if the above is supposed to be some sort of apology for calling me a liar repeatedly and stuff like this, I can't really accept it. It's not good enough.This business where you say there are "hundreds" of people who saw the plane hit the building (with their naked eyes, NOT on TV), you just made that up and that is completely unacceptable.
You need to explicitly apologize for that for me to even think about a reset of our relationship.
In general, you would also have to just stop being such a complete shit eater. It might be hard, I know. I myself didn't stop being a shit eater from one day to the next.
But at this point, there ought to be a recognition of the problem and then a sense that you're making an effort.
This latest champion shit eater stuff that there is no need to fake a video because it's easy to get somebody to fly a plane into a building... you must have, in AA terms "hit bottom" now. That's just such ridiculous SHIT that I don't think it can be surpassed. I mean, actually, I thought the nonsense that Atta had a ticket, therefore the official story is truth, that this was insurpassable, and I was wrong. You surpassed that. This latest thing is far more dazzling, breathtaking in its idiocy.
So if you've hit bottom now as a shit eater, you can only go up from here. But.... dude... you've got a long ways to go... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT • 200 Words @Boris
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Millions of people live in New York.Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word. :)
Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.htmlStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
• Replies: @utu "Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?" - Because it did not happen or their mission was disinfo cover up. , @Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection. , @Jonathan RevuskyStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?With all due respect, I think you have some conceptual gaps in your understanding of these sorts of psy ops.A big component of a synthetic narrative is what you could call preparing the terrain or foreshadowing. I tend to use the word "prefiguration".
I don't say this to offend you, but I just don't think you have too much concept of prefiguration . You see it in other psy ops, like with Charlie Hebdo, the event was prefigured with these other things where Muslims were supposed to be so outraged about some cartoons.
All this stuff that the various government agencies were receiving warnings "Osama Bin Laden about to attack America" -- this is all synthetic prefiguration . Can't you see that? Just think about it.
What you then get are these narratives about how the various agencies were "incompetent" because they ignored all these "warnings" and blah blah.
Actually, the key thing to get out of this is the Mossad did, I guess, play a role in prefiguring the attacks by putting out these "friendly warnings" (LOL) that OBL is gonna come get you and ya dee da..... I mean, once you understand what basically happened, you can see this stuff for what it is.
That is all a red herring and then they create these cookie crumb trails that lead nowhere, or lead to Saudi Arabia or whatever.... which is basically nowhere, in terms of figuring out who really did 9/11.
Well, in short, this whole branch of the conversation of "why they ignored the warnings" is amounts to falling for a constructed distraction. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Sam Shama says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 1:28 am GMT • 600 Words @Rurik Hey L.K.,
holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to mebut this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.
[...]
But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.Rurik,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust, was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life, [even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all] i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
cheers.
• Replies: @Rurik Hey Sam,As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. ... ...This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious.I will take the first part as a complement and offer my gratitude at your graciousness in offering it. Since we don't always see eye to eye, so to speak. As for the second part, I'm not sure what the obvious is. If it's to demean or downplay the suffering of your loved one, then I don't think that's what anyone is trying to do. But I do think I get your gist.So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.not for personal gain per se. Although I'm sure there are some who're guilty of that. Rather it's to benefit a amorphous idea that is most succinctly described as "What's good for the Jews". And as we all know, there have been myriad benefits to be gleaned (both by Israel in particular and Jews in general) from the guilt and sympathy people have felt for 'the Jews' vis-a-vis the Holocaust.Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed!a little while back I was watching a show with my previous girlfriend, CSI or some such. And the story line was beginning to look as if it was the Wolfowitz's who were guilty of an unspeakably heinous crime. They also had an adopted child who was of German ancestry. I didn't have to watch the show to remark to my gal that it would end up that the Wolfowitz's were innocent, but even I was surprised that -as it turned out- that it was (shock, shock) the adopted but now grown boy who was guilty, - that as the investigators were discussing the solution to the crime, the one mentioned to the other, well I guess what happened is 'the nature won out over the nurture'. IOW all Germans are congenitally evil, even when they're raised in an eternally forgiving Jewish household. That for me was Hollywood in a nutshell.We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].I like em too. Brash and brassy and tough. And you're right, we all see things though the prism of our own life experiences and perspectives. I'm sure that had I grown up hearing about how Germans murdered and tried to genocide my people, that such a thing would necessarily have an effect on me. Just as if I were a black man and heard nothing else but what the white man had done to my ancestors, or more to the point, how he was relentlessly holding me down, or all the other narratives and paradigms that we all marinate in, all have an effect on our psyches and view points. This is true.There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity.well I've used it, but then I never pretended to be a member of polite society. Hardly. There are some people whom I would refer to as niggers. Not Obama, certainly not. He's not a nigger in my book. An empty suit and a war criminal, sure. A racist and a Marxist, yea, but not a nigger. For me a nigger is a low-life POS, black or white. And who revels in being a low-life POS. The animals who perpetrated the crimes notoriously reviled as the 'Wichita Massacre' are straight up niggers, in my book. Same with the sub-human animals who murdered Channon Christian. Niggers to a T. I don't shrink from using words that describe something in such a succinct, if jarring way. And I also am not trying to write for the NYT. I'm here writing simply for the purpose of conveying what I consider to be an honest and ingenuous search for the truth.Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms.oh Lord Sam, that's soo politically correct. Have some fun for God's sake. Trust me, African Americans can take being called the 'n' word. I've never known a people to use a word with such alacrity as a Negro uses the word 'nigger'. It's like the Irish with the word 'fuck'. Take those words away from them and they'd be mute. I've been called a 'redneck, hillbilly, cracker', even a CIS, and it's like water off a ducks back. I didn't even get 'triggered'. We need to grow a little thicker bark I think today. Everyone's so sensitive.led by RevuskyJR is passionate. When he goes on about lurid description of anatomy, I'm not put off at all. (even if I confess I am occasionally put off by relentless flame wars) I remember how the Priss talked about how Ann Coulter had 'the Jews' dick in her mouth and she was using too much teeth at times, and I had to laugh. Come on Sam, get out of your Etonian linguistic straight jacket. Break the bonds of puritan parameters on your discourse. You'll breath and write freer, and how could that ever be a bad thing? [see Hunter S., Thomson]In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions,oh my gosh! say it isn't so!!!to provoke the legal/judicial systemgasp!They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no morehttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/6K6ukRrKjKY/hqdefault.jpgsorry, but that is the image that came to my mind
or this one
http://www.zerofiltered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Nurse-Ratched-Unsung-Films-2.jpg
it troubles me Sam, that you would write such a thing and not see the glaring tyrannical undertones of such a statement.
Who made those laws?]umm.. Western governments under Zionist occupation?Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion.not Jews per se Sam. Not my colleagues at work or my dentist or neighbors or relatives or friends. No, they sure don't. But there are a few Jews who wield inordinate power over the financial markets of the Western world, Sam. Like the Rothscild agents, known as the "Russian" oligarchs who looted the wealth and reasources of Russia proper. Those Jews Sam, do control money supplies and markets and banks and control Wall Street and the Fed and the Treasury and other influential institutions of the world's money supply. And I suspect that you're more or less aware of all of that Sam. But for this kind of thing to be common knowledge, would not necessarily be "good for the Jews", now would it Sam? Perhaps people might start to wonder why we need to have a Goldman Sachs boy holding the keys to the US Treasury. Or running the unaccountable Federal Reserve Bank. Eh Sam?and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]my pleasure, but not at the momentCheers to you as well Sam :) , @Jonathan Revusky
Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?You cannot possibly be that stupid.Maybe you're trying to win the shit eater of the week prize. I mentioned that 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar and that must have really incentivized you... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 2:59 am GMT @KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.htmlStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
"Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?" – Because it did not happen or their mission was disinfo cover up.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 4:58 am GMT @Rurik
After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority ...you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled demolition. Duhand I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal (and concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. - If I didn't, then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on the Internet. ;)
I almost pay you a compliment at #201 on The Saker's 9/11 thread
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 5:22 am GMT • 100 Words @KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.htmlStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyIt will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant of the most basic facts that are available. , @KA Saddam was just a 'neighborhood bully,' Netanyahu says– 13 years after saying Saddam threatened 'security of our entire world' -
to AEI's Pletka"Mind you, Saddam was horrible, horrible. Brutal killer. So was Qaddafi. There's no question about that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were in many ways, neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment. But they were not wedded to a larger goal. The militant Islamists–either Iran leading the militant Shi'ites with their proxies Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Hamas Or the militant Sunnis led by ISIS they have a larger goal in mind Their goal is not the conquest of the Middle East. It's the conquest of the world. It's unbelievable, people don't believe "
Hold on a second. Thirteen years ago in testimony to Congress, Netanyahu said that Saddam did represent a threat to the entire world. Excerpts (thanks to Jim Lobe at lobelog):
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/neighborhood-netanyahu-threatened/#sthash.VP3FYo80.dpuf
Mossad is ventriloquizing through the malleable vocal cord of these psychopath
That Mossad gave the 9pre 911 information to US . Telegraph as stenographer reported it
They are still doing and Telegraph is still reporting , @KA "Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of 1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short. Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless it stopped its ballistic missile programme."Gareth Porter. --http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/06/israels-long-history-of-gaming-the-iranian-threat/
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media foreign entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money - driven garbled claims is the ransom.Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics, and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized ,unquestioned .
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lie Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 2:15 pm GMT • 300 Words @KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.htmlStill it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
With all due respect, I think you have some conceptual gaps in your understanding of these sorts of psy ops.
A big component of a synthetic narrative is what you could call preparing the terrain or foreshadowing. I tend to use the word "prefiguration".
I don't say this to offend you, but I just don't think you have too much concept of prefiguration . You see it in other psy ops, like with Charlie Hebdo, the event was prefigured with these other things where Muslims were supposed to be so outraged about some cartoons.
All this stuff that the various government agencies were receiving warnings "Osama Bin Laden about to attack America" - this is all synthetic prefiguration . Can't you see that? Just think about it.
What you then get are these narratives about how the various agencies were "incompetent" because they ignored all these "warnings" and blah blah.
Actually, the key thing to get out of this is the Mossad did, I guess, play a role in prefiguring the attacks by putting out these "friendly warnings" (LOL) that OBL is gonna come get you and ya dee da .. I mean, once you understand what basically happened, you can see this stuff for what it is.
That is all a red herring and then they create these cookie crumb trails that lead nowhere, or lead to Saudi Arabia or whatever . which is basically nowhere, in terms of figuring out who really did 9/11.
Well, in short, this whole branch of the conversation of "why they ignored the warnings" is amounts to falling for a constructed distraction.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?
The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant of the most basic facts that are available.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz I said "know " not "believe"..... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 3:12 pm GMT • 1,100 Words @Boris
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?Millions of people live in New York.Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world, then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times, share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which case I meant every word. :)
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
(Sigh .)
You really are such a dishonest shit eater, dude. The question is not how many people live in New York. Sure, there are millions of people in New York, but just for starters, how many of those people at a given point in time have a clear line of sight to be looking at the right point on the building? Like, some people are sitting in a car and only have a view of the car in front of them basically. Or they are in an office with no window or a window that just has a view of the next building .
Of those who could be looking at the building, how many of them actually were looking in that direction? I mean, people are busy, they have things to do. They have their work and so on. They're not all just staring at a building thinking a plane is going to crash into it, you know. The people living it in real time don't know a plane is going to crash into a building, so they wouldn't be looking in that direction. Especially the first building that was allegedly hit, if you just happened to be looking that direction and see it, it would be a huge happenstance sort of thing, no? But even the second one . who is going to be staring at the other building, thinking that ANOTHER plane is going to hit that one?
I simply posed a legitimate question, which is how many people claim they saw a plane hit a building - and, of course, I mean, NOT on TV! I don't know the answer to the question, honestly. I think it's quite a low number, frankly. I've heard it said that it's easy to find somebody who knows somebody who saw a plane hit a building, but it's pretty much impossible to find a person who themselves saw it happen. Probably some people say they saw it direct but then if you press them, they admit that they saw it on the TV like everybody else.
Anyway, you said "hundreds of people saw this". Where did you get that figure, I wonder
Oh shit . I see . You pulled it out of your ass. You just made it up!
Gee, that's pretty deplorable really, you know. Just to be making up facts in what is supposed to be a serious conversation.
DAMN! YOU JUST MADE THAT UP!!! THAT IS REALLY COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
YOU REALLY ARE A LITTLE LYING SHIT EATING BASTARD!!!
Now, I do have to say that I think I have expressed myself on this before . I don't like liars. It's really not just some pretense. I really really do not like liars LIKE YOU. I really really don't! And I particularly don't like it when a pathological liar who just makes up shit repeatedly calls ME a LIAR!
That is really pretty scummy and is completely unacceptable.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere? It's just crashing a plane into a building.
OH, GOOD GRIEF .. WTF is your problem? Did your momma repeatedly drop you when you were little? I mean, on the head?
Uhh, yeah, right. Crashing a plane into a building is so damned easy. Or getting somebody to fly a plane into a building is easy . Sheesh .
You know, really, I honestly don't think so . I do not think the Israeli civil service pay scale is quite good enough to get anybody to fly a plane into a building .
But hold on, that's it! I think you've got this week's shit eater of the week award wrapped up!
"Why make a fake video? It's just so easy to get people to fly planes into a building for real! No problem!!!!"
Shit, I think you surpassed yourself. That is really champion shit eater bullshit! SUPERSTAR YOU ARE!!!
I knew you had talent, but my god, this is epoch making. I can't believe I am really conversing with such a fucking idiot. I mean, you really must be one in a million! YES, it's just so easy to fly a plane into a building, or convince somebody to fly a plane into a building!!!
I guess that's why there are no stuntmen working in Hollywood. If you need a scene where somebody falls off a tall building to their death, why pay stuntmen or special effects people to fake the scene??? NO!!!! You just pay somebody to jump off the building to their death for real, because THAT'S EASIER!!!
MY GOD! YOU JUST MADE MY DAY! YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! BAW HA HAAAAAH!!!!!
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best.
Okay, dude, you have made me laugh and I should thank you for that. BUT . if the above is supposed to be some sort of apology for calling me a liar repeatedly and stuff like this, I can't really accept it. It's not good enough.
This business where you say there are "hundreds" of people who saw the plane hit the building (with their naked eyes, NOT on TV), you just made that up and that is completely unacceptable.
You need to explicitly apologize for that for me to even think about a reset of our relationship.
In general, you would also have to just stop being such a complete shit eater. It might be hard, I know. I myself didn't stop being a shit eater from one day to the next.
But at this point, there ought to be a recognition of the problem and then a sense that you're making an effort.
This latest champion shit eater stuff that there is no need to fake a video because it's easy to get somebody to fly a plane into a building you must have, in AA terms "hit bottom" now. That's just such ridiculous SHIT that I don't think it can be surpassed. I mean, actually, I thought the nonsense that Atta had a ticket, therefore the official story is truth, that this was insurpassable, and I was wrong. You surpassed that. This latest thing is far more dazzling, breathtaking in its idiocy.
So if you've hit bottom now as a shit eater, you can only go up from here. But . dude you've got a long ways to go
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 4:28 pm GMT • 100 Words
I don't want to be part of this crazy shouting match, but I saw the second plane hit. We were all watching the towers after the 1st impact, hell there must have been about 100 spectators gathered around the street level around 500 yards or a bit less away from the Tower ground esplanade, paused. The second impact came in less than I'd say 20 mins! We stuck around for another 10 mins until fire dept. came in numbers and cops together started driving people away.What are you talking about TV man?!!
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyI saw the second plane hitThat's interesting. Could you provide your name and some contact details so that we could talk to you and assess how credible this is? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm GMT @Anonymous I don't want to be part of this crazy shouting match, but I saw the second plane hit. We were all watching the towers after the 1st impact, hell there must have been about 100 spectators gathered around the street level around 500 yards or a bit less away from the Tower ground esplanade, paused. The second impact came in less than I'd say 20 mins! We stuck around for another 10 mins until fire dept. came in numbers and cops together started driving people away.What are you talking about TV man?!!
I saw the second plane hit
That's interesting. Could you provide your name and some contact details so that we could talk to you and assess how credible this is?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 8:39 pm GMT
Yes sure, that's all I need a bunch of crazies calling me up about 9/11 "truth". Take my post for what it is worth to you, I don't care about your "how credible this is" test either. And yeah, there WERE hundreds of people watching it!
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyAnd yeah, there WERE hundreds of people watching it!Oh really? Did any of those people have a name? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Rurik says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 9:42 pm GMT • 1,300 Words @Sam Shama
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.Rurik,
[...]
But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust, was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life, [even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all] i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
cheers.
Hey Sam,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious.
I will take the first part as a complement and offer my gratitude at your graciousness in offering it. Since we don't always see eye to eye, so to speak. As for the second part, I'm not sure what the obvious is. If it's to demean or downplay the suffering of your loved one, then I don't think that's what anyone is trying to do. But I do think I get your gist.
So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.
not for personal gain per se. Although I'm sure there are some who're guilty of that. Rather it's to benefit a amorphous idea that is most succinctly described as "What's good for the Jews". And as we all know, there have been myriad benefits to be gleaned (both by Israel in particular and Jews in general) from the guilt and sympathy people have felt for 'the Jews' vis-a-vis the Holocaust.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed!
a little while back I was watching a show with my previous girlfriend, CSI or some such. And the story line was beginning to look as if it was the Wolfowitz's who were guilty of an unspeakably heinous crime. They also had an adopted child who was of German ancestry. I didn't have to watch the show to remark to my gal that it would end up that the Wolfowitz's were innocent, but even I was surprised that -as it turned out- that it was (shock, shock) the adopted but now grown boy who was guilty, – that as the investigators were discussing the solution to the crime, the one mentioned to the other, well I guess what happened is 'the nature won out over the nurture'. IOW all Germans are congenitally evil, even when they're raised in an eternally forgiving Jewish household. That for me was Hollywood in a nutshell.
We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
I like em too. Brash and brassy and tough. And you're right, we all see things though the prism of our own life experiences and perspectives. I'm sure that had I grown up hearing about how Germans murdered and tried to genocide my people, that such a thing would necessarily have an effect on me. Just as if I were a black man and heard nothing else but what the white man had done to my ancestors, or more to the point, how he was relentlessly holding me down, or all the other narratives and paradigms that we all marinate in, all have an effect on our psyches and view points. This is true.
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity.
well I've used it, but then I never pretended to be a member of polite society. Hardly. There are some people whom I would refer to as niggers. Not Obama, certainly not. He's not a nigger in my book. An empty suit and a war criminal, sure. A racist and a Marxist, yea, but not a nigger. For me a nigger is a low-life POS, black or white. And who revels in being a low-life POS. The animals who perpetrated the crimes notoriously reviled as the 'Wichita Massacre' are straight up niggers, in my book. Same with the sub-human animals who murdered Channon Christian. Niggers to a T. I don't shrink from using words that describe something in such a succinct, if jarring way. And I also am not trying to write for the NYT. I'm here writing simply for the purpose of conveying what I consider to be an honest and ingenuous search for the truth.
Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms.
oh Lord Sam, that's soo politically correct. Have some fun for God's sake. Trust me, African Americans can take being called the 'n' word. I've never known a people to use a word with such alacrity as a Negro uses the word 'nigger'. It's like the Irish with the word 'fuck'. Take those words away from them and they'd be mute. I've been called a 'redneck, hillbilly, cracker', even a CIS, and it's like water off a ducks back. I didn't even get 'triggered'. We need to grow a little thicker bark I think today. Everyone's so sensitive.
led by Revusky
JR is passionate. When he goes on about lurid description of anatomy, I'm not put off at all. (even if I confess I am occasionally put off by relentless flame wars) I remember how the Priss talked about how Ann Coulter had 'the Jews' dick in her mouth and she was using too much teeth at times, and I had to laugh. Come on Sam, get out of your Etonian linguistic straight jacket. Break the bonds of puritan parameters on your discourse. You'll breath and write freer, and how could that ever be a bad thing? [see Hunter S., Thomson]
In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions,
oh my gosh! say it isn't so!!!
to provoke the legal/judicial system
gasp!
They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6K6ukRrKjKY/hqdefault.jpg
sorry, but that is the image that came to my mind
or this one
http://www.zerofiltered.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Nurse-Ratched-Unsung-Films-2.jpg
it troubles me Sam, that you would write such a thing and not see the glaring tyrannical undertones of such a statement.
Who made those laws?]
umm.. Western governments under Zionist occupation?
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion.
not Jews per se Sam. Not my colleagues at work or my dentist or neighbors or relatives or friends. No, they sure don't. But there are a few Jews who wield inordinate power over the financial markets of the Western world, Sam. Like the Rothscild agents, known as the "Russian" oligarchs who looted the wealth and reasources of Russia proper. Those Jews Sam, do control money supplies and markets and banks and control Wall Street and the Fed and the Treasury and other influential institutions of the world's money supply. And I suspect that you're more or less aware of all of that Sam. But for this kind of thing to be common knowledge, would not necessarily be "good for the Jews", now would it Sam? Perhaps people might start to wonder why we need to have a Goldman Sachs boy holding the keys to the US Treasury. Or running the unaccountable Federal Reserve Bank. Eh Sam?
and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
my pleasure, but not at the moment
Cheers to you as well Sam
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 9:55 pm GMT @Jonathan Revusky
It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant of the most basic facts that are available.
I said "know " not "believe" ..
• Replies: @Jonathan RevuskyI said "know " not "believe" ..I don't understand your point. I doubt you have one, but if you do, you'll have to flesh it out more. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 10:39 pm GMT @Wizard of Oz I said "know " not "believe".....
I said "know " not "believe" ..
I don't understand your point. I doubt you have one, but if you do, you'll have to flesh it out more.
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz We may believe that we have worked out what Mossad knew and be able to give the reasons for our inferences but to get to the point of "knowing" something requires more than one's personal certainties or confdence in thd high probabilities. It requires for example that archives have been opened and the most respected scholars say that it is remarkable but they don't seem to have been doctored and this, that and the other now becomes clear in a way it wasn't before. Of course new mysteries or uncertainties can open up. E.g. one can imagine that, if Churchill's 1930s debts were not hitherto known about and it was just disclosed by letters that would make people say they didn't just believe but "knew" he had been insolvent *and* that the South African Jewish mining magnate had fixed up his debts, then some might start speculating about hitherto unsuspected Jewish influence on his attitude to Hitler.Still there are serious differences between believing and knowing even if the lines are fuzzy because no empirical fact is 100 per cent certain. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 11:44 pm GMT • 100 Words @Sam Shama
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.Rurik,
[...]
But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust, was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life, [even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all] i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't know any.Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts' indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
cheers.
Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?
You cannot possibly be that stupid.
Maybe you're trying to win the shit eater of the week prize. I mentioned that 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar and that must have really incentivized you
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Jonathan Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment September 13, 2016 at 11:47 pm GMT @Anonymous Yes sure, that's all I need a bunch of crazies calling me up about 9/11 "truth". Take my post for what it is worth to you, I don't care about your "how credible this is" test either. And yeah, there WERE hundreds of people watching it!
And yeah, there WERE hundreds of people watching it!
Oh really? Did any of those people have a name?
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 14, 2016 at 3:10 am GMT • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
Saddam was just a 'neighborhood bully,' Netanyahu says– 13 years after saying Saddam threatened 'security of our entire world' –
to AEI's Pletka"Mind you, Saddam was horrible, horrible. Brutal killer. So was Qaddafi. There's no question about that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were in many ways, neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment. But they were not wedded to a larger goal. The militant Islamists–either Iran leading the militant Shi'ites with their proxies Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Hamas Or the militant Sunnis led by ISIS they have a larger goal in mind Their goal is not the conquest of the Middle East. It's the conquest of the world. It's unbelievable, people don't believe "
Hold on a second. Thirteen years ago in testimony to Congress, Netanyahu said that Saddam did represent a threat to the entire world. Excerpts (thanks to Jim Lobe at lobelog):
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/neighborhood-netanyahu-threatened/#sthash.VP3FYo80.dpuf
Mossad is ventriloquizing through the malleable vocal cord of these psychopath
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
That Mossad gave the 9pre 911 information to US . Telegraph as stenographer reported it
They are still doing and Telegraph is still reporting
- KA says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 14, 2016 at 3:37 am GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
"Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of 1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short. Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless it stopped its ballistic missile programme."
Gareth Porter. –http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/06/israels-long-history-of-gaming-the-iranian-threat/
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media foreign entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money – driven garbled claims is the ransom.Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics, and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized ,unquestioned .
• Replies: @Wizard of Oz Truths which are less than whole truths are usually much more effective than lies and I would expect Mossad manipulators to be aware of that. But it is btw. My purpose in replying is merely to make my view clear that the story of forewarning in The Telegraph story may well have been one that was related to Cheney after 9/11 and which made him inclined to believe what was also said about Iraq. It doesn't mean that he wasn't already predisposed to depose Saddam Hussein but it alters the context somewhat. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lie
- Smiddy says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 14, 2016 at 3:45 am GMT • 100 Words
"How could it possibly go through the steel? I happen to think that they had not only a plane but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously."
- Donald Trump (on the day of 911)
https://www.facebook.com/stfnews/videos/1145505108859931/?pnref=story
Why can't I find a second reference to this audio interview literally anywhere (otherwise I would've used a different source)? Shouldn't this be the audio clip that sinks Trump's Presidential hopes? This should be the biggest news story of the year, but systematic silence is all as usual
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- AnonCrimethink2016 says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 14, 2016 at 4:10 am GMT • 200 Words @biz
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landingsActually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc.
Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's own conspiracy theory, that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two planes (not to mention Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day) does not hold up under any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry and physics can see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official explanation, but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never be clear exactly who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative are demonstrably false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking person considerable pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably followed in U.S. foreign policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about "How could such a vast conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for starters ) rather than engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness accounts that attest to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm GMT • 100 Words @KA "Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of 1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short. Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless it stopped its ballistic missile programme."
Gareth Porter. --http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/06/israels-long-history-of-gaming-the-iranian-threat/
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media foreign entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money - driven garbled claims is the ransom.Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics, and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized ,unquestioned .
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lieTruths which are less than whole truths are usually much more effective than lies and I would expect Mossad manipulators to be aware of that. But it is btw. My purpose in replying is merely to make my view clear that the story of forewarning in The Telegraph story may well have been one that was related to Cheney after 9/11 and which made him inclined to believe what was also said about Iraq. It doesn't mean that he wasn't already predisposed to depose Saddam Hussein but it alters the context somewhat.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 16, 2016 at 12:13 am GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/
International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article or editorial variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right". What is remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its condescending anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 20, 2016 at 3:13 am GMT
"American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. " LOL were you even alive then!
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
- Wizard of Oz says: Show Comment Next New Comment September 20, 2016 at 10:23 am GMT • 200 Words @Jonathan Revusky
I said "know " not "believe" ..I don't understand your point. I doubt you have one, but if you do, you'll have to flesh it out more.We may believe that we have worked out what Mossad knew and be able to give the reasons for our inferences but to get to the point of "knowing" something requires more than one's personal certainties or confdence in thd high probabilities. It requires for example that archives have been opened and the most respected scholars say that it is remarkable but they don't seem to have been doctored and this, that and the other now becomes clear in a way it wasn't before. Of course new mysteries or uncertainties can open up. E.g. one can imagine that, if Churchill's 1930s debts were not hitherto known about and it was just disclosed by letters that would make people say they didn't just believe but "knew" he had been insolvent *and* that the South African Jewish mining magnate had fixed up his debts, then some might start speculating about hitherto unsuspected Jewish influence on his attitude to Hitler.
Still there are serious differences between believing and knowing even if the lines are fuzzy because no empirical fact is 100 per cent certain.
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
- Peripatetic commenter says: Show Comment Next New Comment November 15, 2016 at 10:54 pm GMT @Yngvar
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZI see that someone has updated a document about that:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Conspiracy_theory#Pejorative_meaning
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 | www.infowars.com
"This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."
"These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'" he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"
Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from. In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the exact sources of the list unknown.
CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing."
The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election, with a surge in new subscriptions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump.
Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.
So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election.
Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting third parties with filtering the news.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Nassim Nichaolss Taleb via Medium.com,What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking "clerks" and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the "intelligencia" can't find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren't intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities - but their main skills is capacity to pass exams written by people like them .
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academic-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren't even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism -- in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types -- those who want to "nudge" us into some behavior -- much of what they call "rational" or "irrational" comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule .
The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in many countries, the government's role is ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and rarely seen outside specialized outlets, social media, and universities -- most people have proper jobs and there are not many opening for the IYI.
Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite.
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn't understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are "red necks" or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit.
When Plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term "uneducated". What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: "democracy" when it fits the IYI, and "populism" when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools, and PhDs as these are needed in the club.
More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of "equality of races" and "economic equality" but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver. Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only will he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some other such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn't do so is mentally ill.
The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are "science", that the "technology" is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.
Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the "removal" of Gadhafi because he was "a dictator", not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn't pay for results).
The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn't use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn't know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba; he doesn't know that there is no difference between "pseudointellectual" and "intellectual" in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past 5 years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics; he knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.
But a much easier marker: he doesn't deadlift.
Wrascaly Wabbit Nov 9, 2016 8:58 AM ,Welcome to a brave new world!monk27 Nov 9, 2016 2:07 PM ,Taleb is one of the very few really cool intellectuals . And he writes excellent books...KuriousKat Nov 20, 2016 6:25 PM ,IYIs have the IYM and BOHICA to contend with and they are coming in Yuge numbers... There is no escape. Their stats and not so magic algorithms and Faux sheepskins are useless..pachanguero Nov 20, 2016 7:07 PM ,Open wide..here we come.
We are the Mothers of Invention.
Lawyers are the tools of the NWO. Never produce anything but rule over you....
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
|
|
|
www.moonofalabama.org
Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.
|
|
|
www.ronpaullibertyreport.com
We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed and this one holds a lot more water.
This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"
This is the real Fake News List (and it's sourced):
Journalist Outlet Source Cecilia Vega ABC WikiLeaks David Muir ABC WikiLeaks Diane Sawyer ABC WikiLeaks George Stephanopoulos ABC WikiLeaks Jon Kail ABC WikiLeaks John Heillman Bloomberg WikiLeaks Mark Halperin Bloomberg WikiLeaks Norah О'Donnell CBS WikiLeaks Vicki Gordon CBS WikiLeaks John Harwood CNBC WikiLeaks Brianna Keilar CNN WikiLeaks David Chalian CNN WikiLeaks Gloria Borger CNN WikiLeaks Jeff Zeleny CNN WikiLeaks John Berman CNN WikiLeaks Kate Bouldan CNN WikiLeaks Mark Preston CNN WikiLeaks Sam Feist CNN WikiLeaks Wolf Blitzer CNN WikiLeaks Jackie Kucinich Daily Beast WikiLeaks Whitney Snyder Huffington Post WikiLeaks Betsy Fisher Martin MORE WikiLeaks Alex Wagner MSNBC WikiLeaks Beth Fouhy MSNBC WikiLeaks Chuck Todd MSNBC WikiLeaks Phil Griffin MSNBC WikiLeaks Rachel Maddow MSNBC WikiLeaks Rachel Racusen MSNBC WikiLeaks Savannah Gutherie NBC WikiLeaks Jamil Smith New Republic WikiLeaks Amy Chozik New York Times WikiLeaks Gail Collins New York Times WikiLeaks Jonathan Martin New York Times WikiLeaks Maggie Habennan New York Times DNC leak Mark Leibovich New York Times WikiLeaks Pat Healey New York Times WikiLeaks Ryan Liza New Yorker WikiLeaks Sandia Sobieraj Westfall PEOPLE WikiLeaks Glenn Thrush POLITICO WikiLeaks Kenneth Vogel POLITICO WikiLeaks Mike Allen POLITICO WikiLeaks Jessica Valenti The Guardian WikiLeaks Monisha Rajesh The Guardian WikiLeaks Sidy Doyle The Guardian WikiLeaks Brent Budowskv The Hill WikiLeaks Alyssa Mastramonoco VICE WikiLeaks Jon Allen VOX WikiLeaks Karen Tumults Washington Post WikiLeaks
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
From: The Origins of the Republican Civil WarNicole Hemmer, Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 368 pp., $34.95.
IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them. "The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative, Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.
In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right, complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the decades.
According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."
Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."
While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as a united front to ruin him.
Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.
In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism and preach the conservative gospel.
... ... ...
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement, demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that, although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130
Bruce Wilder @102The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )
Thomas Pickety" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
The Guardian
kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
Why the Working Class was Never 'White'
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.
Eventually something is going to break.
dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.
Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state
efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )
Faustusnotes @147You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.htmlSo yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.
bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121
bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , November 16, 2016 at 2:51 amHarpers Magazine via Antiwar.com: The New Red Scare
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/?single=1Reviving the art of threat inflation
By Andrew Cockburn
"Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity."
####
While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty solid.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment. Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.
Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed, personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C" work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless, you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar, and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.
But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.
To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing"). This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS.
But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A Beautiful Mind might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar. To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.
Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.
Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy). But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple "pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic black attire.
Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish expressions.
Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances. No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality. The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being "conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done. I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).
Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political Science Association told me to do it this way."
Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."
Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry Gates dustup in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings. You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.
Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are on the Right Side of History"?
I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.
Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.
Carlton Meyer says: • WebsiteNovember 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words
This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.
Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.
As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but
Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.
3.anon says:November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words
What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ??
How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero academic competency ??
6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMTOur first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.
8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.
Why does anyone still find this surprising?
11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words
The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.
12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words
Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked Obama as an "empty chair").
I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years.
He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures, and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.
It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.
This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.
It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people tell me I did a great job!
13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT
It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.
15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words@Anon
"I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."
Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.
16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 WordsThis critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.
17.Jim Christian says:November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words
@AnonPS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.
Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.
20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMTAmericans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when Presidents.
21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT
So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.
22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMTYeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent". America is a society run by and for phonies.
23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words
Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the anti-commie Cold War Crusade.
The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.
It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..
24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CCZ
I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager.
25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words
I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.
Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.
"There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.
More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust movies have won at least one Oscar ..
https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/26/barack-obama-holocaust-is-a-religion/
27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Tom Welsh
Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another.
I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle.
- H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)
28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped. What choice did the American people have?
He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain gotten into office?
Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.
American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?
29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words
President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers, mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers, developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft professors.
Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making speeches and appearances. Tough job .
30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.
32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT
Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/
34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT
@AndrewR
"Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager."
AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of hardware store managers in this country.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
ucgsblog, November 14, 2016 at 3:50 pmErm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims, who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology CenterThe "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"
The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it; Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.
Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're coming from: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"
On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed."
^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.
I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."
And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
mk November 16, 2016 at 7:55 am
Eureka Springs November 16, 2016 at 8:21 amWhere the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative.
Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. Get out of their box.
|
|
|
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:08 amCarla November 15, 2016 at 10:42 amUltimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.
Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.
Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the 2004 elections.
I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.
Synoia November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.
Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pmWhat would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either.
What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere?
The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in Congress.
Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?
What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.
The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Synoia November 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm> What would make Democrats focus on the working class?
The quest for political power.
James Dodd November 15, 2016 at 10:46 amIron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame.
I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP).
anonymouse November 15, 2016 at 11:07 amWhat So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class – Harvard Business Review
Brad November 15, 2016 at 11:45 amWe know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist siren call?
Harold November 15, 2016 at 11:14 amAgreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.
And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist. (Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.
Citizen Sissy November 15, 2016 at 11:38 amLeft-wing populism unites people of all classes and all identities by emphasizing policies. That was what Bernie Sanders meant to me, at least.
rd November 15, 2016 at 11:47 amI've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.
Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA.
Gonna get interesting very quickly.
Dave November 15, 2016 at 11:55 amMy wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.
She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.
Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.
On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?
shinola November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm"Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is a Class issue?
Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:15 pmThe problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.
The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%).
The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.
I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.
Vatch November 15, 2016 at 2:19 pmI'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.
jrs November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pmHere ya go!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182918/fewer-americans-identify-middle-class-recent-years.aspx
TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:24 pmeven working class is a total equivocation. A lot of them are service workers period.
armchair November 15, 2016 at 2:50 pmIt is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,
Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being subservient to the planter capitalists locally.Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".
One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict the relationship to boss and worker.
Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes it open season on a certain class of victims.
It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.
So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes (true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike, people do still care for each other.
This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.
It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that 19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.
You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race can be transcended in action.
Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.
barrisj November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pmYour comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history. Link . The unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle, in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by, Pablo O'Higgins , to celebrate the accomplishment.
Waldenpond November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pmSpeaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white people here is a choice excerpt:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
http://crasstalk.com/2016/03/poor-white-america-deserves-to-die-says-national-review/
Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article, and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is: what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities "stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.
barrisj November 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]
Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.
[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers,]
I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.
If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers), create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed. It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).
The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA, a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.
[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics]
Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity politics? Privatized identity politics?
I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.
If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which fails to address the power imbalance.
[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]
Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pmFor a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.
Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites. The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming, all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction, the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority" would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote, etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:
White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not".
vegeholic November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pmAlso read Albion's Seed for interesting discussion about the waves of immigration and how those went on to impact subsequent generations.
ChrisAtRU November 15, 2016 at 2:26 pmPresenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts. The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive, negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises in pandering.
Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life is getting shorter.
TG November 15, 2016 at 3:00 pmMarshall is awesome.
To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:
"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists "
IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT won. And I concur.
This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016 was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source: US Election Atlas )Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just race.
Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.pretzelattack November 16, 2016 at 3:09 amKudos. Well said.
If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.
The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all over again.
Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black 'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.
Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.
tongorad November 15, 2016 at 3:18 pmthat was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example. the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites, too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators"; that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights movement in the 60's.
Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pmI might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:33 pmHaving been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.
It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?
I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.
Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics as it is about to disappear.
I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the UK working class with no political outlet.
Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.
How is this left?
Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower down the scale.
It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class, but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.
giovanni zibordi November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pmThinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.
Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.
Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.
dk November 15, 2016 at 7:54 pmSo, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right), but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.
Erelis November 15, 2016 at 10:59 pmObama is personally likeable
Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.
Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.
Gaylord November 15, 2016 at 11:24 pmWatch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on.
different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:47 amWatch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.
Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there. I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.
Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 | www.unz.com
Michele Paccione / Shutterstock.com Universally, Trump was depicted as an anti-establishment candidate. Washington and Wall Street hated him, and the media were deployed to vilify him endlessly. If they could not discredit Trump enough, surely they would steal the election from him. Some even suggested Trump would be assassinated.Acting the part, Trump charged repeatedly that the election was rigged, and he was right, of course. During the primaries, Hillary Clinton received debate questions in advance from CNN. More seriously, 30 states used voting machines that could easily be hacked.
A leaked tape of Trump making obscene comments about groping women became further proof that the establishment was out to get him. In spite of all this, Trump managed to win by a landslide, so what happened?
To steal an American election, one only needs to tamper with votes in two or three critical states, and since Hillary didn't win, we must conclude that she was never the establishment's chosen puppet. As Trump claimed, the fix was in, all right, except that it was rigged in his favor, as born out by the fact.
While everybody else yelped that Trump would never be allowed to win, I begged to differ. After the Orlando false flag shooting on June 12th, 2016, I wrote:
In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.
On September 24th, I doubled down:
Mind-fucked, most Americans can't even see that an American president's only task is to disguise the deep state's intentions. Chosen by the deep state to explain away its crimes, our president's pronouncements are nearly always contradicted by the deep state's actions. While the president talks of peace, democracy, racial harmony, prosperity for Main Street and going after banksters, etc., the deep state wages endless war, stages meaningless elections, stokes racial hatred, bankrupts nearly all Americans and enables massive Wall Street crimes, etc.
Only the infantile will imagine the president as any kind of savior or, even more hilariously, anti-establishment. Since the deep state won't even tolerate a renegade reporter at, say, the San Jose Mercury News, how can you expect a deep state's enemy to land in the White House?! It cannot happen.
A presidential candidate will promise to fix all that's wrong with our government, and this stance, this appearance, is actually very useful for the deep state, for it gives Americans hope. Promising everything, Obama delivered nothing. So who do you think is being primed by the deep state to be our next false savior?
Who benefits from false flag terrorist attacks blamed on Muslims? Who gains when blacks riot? Why is the Democratic Party propping up a deeply-despised and terminally ill war criminal? More personable Bernie Sanders was nixed by the deep state since it had another jester in mind.
The first presidential debate is Monday. Under stress, Hillary's eyes will dart in separate directions. Coughing nonstop for 90 minutes, her highness will hack up a gazillion unsecured emails. Her head will jerk spasmodically, plop onto the floor and, though decapitated, continue to gush platitudes and lies. "A Very Impressive Performance," CNBC and CNN will announce. Come November, though, Trump will be installed because his constituency needs to be temporarily pacified. The deep state knows that white people are pissed.
The media were out to get Trump, pundits from across the political spectrum kept repeating, but the truth is that the media made Trump. Long before the election, Trump became a household name, thanks to the media.
Your average American can't name any other real estate developer, casino owner or even his own senators, but he has known Trump since forever. For more than a decade, Trump was a reality TV star, with two of his children also featured regularly on The Apprentice. Trump's "You're fired" and his hair became iconic. Trump appeared on talk shows, had cameo roles in movies and owned the Miss Universe pageant. In 2011, Obama joked that Trump as president would deck out the White House in garish fashion, with his own name huge on the façade. The suave, slick prez roasted Trump again in 2016. Trump has constantly been in the limelight.
It's true that during the presidential campaign, Trump received mostly negative press, but this only ramped up support among his core constituency. Joe Sixpacks had long seen the media as not just against everything they cherished, but against them as people, so the more the media attacked Trump, the more popular he became among the white working class.
Like politicians, casinos specialize in empty promises. Trump, then, is a master hustler, just like Obama, and with help from the media, this New York billionaire became a darling of the flyover states. Before his sudden transformation, Trump was certainly an insider. He donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Hillary attended his third wedding. Golf buddies, The Donald and Bill were also friends with one Jeffrey Epstein, owner of the infamous Lolita Express and a sex orgy, sex slave island in the Caribbean.
In 2002, New York Magazine published "Jeffrey Epstein: International Money of Mystery." This asskissing piece begins, "He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen eye for the ladies-to say nothing of a relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists across the country-and for financial markets around the world."
Trump is quoted, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it-Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Bill Clinton shouts out, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS."
Epstein gushes back, "If you were a boxer at the downtown gymnasium at 14th Street and Mike Tyson walked in, your face would have the same look as these foreign leaders had when Clinton entered the room. He is the world's greatest politician."
Even during a very nasty election campaign, Trump stayed clear of Clinton's association with Epstein because he himself had been chummy with the convicted pervert. Trump also never brought up the Clintons' drug running in Mena or the many mysterious deaths of those whose existence inconvenienced their hold on power.
With eight years in the White House, plus stints as a senator then secretary of state, Clinton is considered the ultimate insider. Though a novice politician, Trump is also an insider, and it's a grand joke of the establishment that they've managed to convince Joe Sixpacks everywhere that Trump will save them.
Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary, for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites, know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America.
While Clinton says America is already great, Trump promises to make America great again, but the decline of the US will only accelerate. Our manufacturing base is handicapped because American workers will not put up with Chinese wages, insanely long hours or living in cramped factory dormitories. In a global economy, those who can suck it up best get the jobs.
On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans.
With his livelihood vaporized, the poor man does not care for LGBT rights, the glass ceiling or climate change. Supplementing his wretched income with frequent treks to the church pantry, if not blood bank, he needs immediate relief. It's a shame he's staking his hopes on an imposter.
The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better.
Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel, Love Like Hate . He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, Postcards from the End of America .
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2016 | www.wsws.org
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states, the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20 points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points. Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012 by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans (3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class, with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
– Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.
Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna something .
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
That's the efffing truth .
UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":
An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
How downright sick. And how pathetic.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
– Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.
Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna … something .
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
That's the efffing truth .
UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":
An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
How downright sick. And how pathetic.
|
|
|
Nov 03, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
Fred1 4h agoWhy did humans invent gods?
Well I'm sure there's many reasons but one has to be because religion was a good way of saying "I haven't got a fucking clue" without losing face. And we're obsessed with keeping face.
That's all religion really is. It fills the gaps in human knowledge and as the gaps become fewer we become less religious.
Now we probably shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves and say we've closed all of the gaps (we've barely left our neck of the woods) but there is certainly the sense that humans know a lot of stuff.
The issue of course is humans collectively know a lot of stuff but individually we only know a very specific amount of stuff. There's a lot of stuff on the internet these days which we can access and (skim) read but that's not to say we understand any of it or can critically assess it.
Which brings me to Trump. Religion is not as popular these days because we've all got a bit cocky and think we know everything because we can Google it. But we still have massive gaps in our knowledge.
Trump panders to the same gaps in our knowledge that religion once did. Trump has the answers. Clinton is the problem. We know this apparently. Just like we once knew there was a god.
As a general rule we should stick to what we know rather than what we perceive since perception can be so misleading (good old common sense). We should also be deeply suspicious when someone comes to us with answers especially when those answers are actually in the form of nothing in particular and criticising everyone else.
Just for one second put aside what you think you know about the world and the "elite" and stick to what you actually know about Trump. Sexual assault anyone?
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.
PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 4:46 amColonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 5:39 amNot mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.
There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.
Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial – i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.
The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure to make things worse.
PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:11 amThank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.
That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy towards Russia.
A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success) with a bucket of salt.
Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?
On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday evening and unable to say so.
Synoia October 12, 2016 at 11:55 amI'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.
Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold.
Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.
Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.
He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.
Moneta October 12, 2016 at 8:36 amThe list from PuKIm IS his list of accomplisments.
Apologies to PuKim, I suspect your list is incomplete :-), one significant omission is the Expansion of Warrantless Surveillance of all Peoples.
This by a constitutional scholar apparently more interested in exploiting perceived holes in the constitution than upholding its grand principles.
Oops, that's a second great Obama accomplishment that was accidentally omitted form you list above.
PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:51 amI don't believe Obama could have done otherwise. Without a neolib ideology he would not have made it to President.
So you are asking him to drop what made him rise to the top.
moneta October 12, 2016 at 9:34 amI agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.
I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.
Ivy October 12, 2016 at 10:51 amI believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the USA.
The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.
The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke of change could change course.
It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.
For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits the leaders to do it in one scoop.
BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 11:45 amMany view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.
Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it, while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.
Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 1:32 pmAs plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.
good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies equally republican.
See:
Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria
Posted: 10 Oct 2016 04:25 AM PDT
http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/1122-obama-resists-hawks-as-u-s-russia-step-up-war-threats-over-syria
-----------------
http://www.justice-integrity.org/"Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke and mirrors clear.History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy" that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
see:
https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.htmlJack October 12, 2016 at 10:10 amPK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.'
Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period.
The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).
I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.
Portia October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pmWhat made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.
sinbad66 October 12, 2016 at 8:48 amthe perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office.
pretzelattack October 12, 2016 at 8:54 amNobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.
A point rarely mentioned. Well said!
Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:18 ammaybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court. sorry, running out of time here.
Moneta October 12, 2016 at 10:37 amOf course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget, the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.
sid_finster October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pmIn an alternate universe. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada, but I did not think he would accomplish much. Hard to stop a slow moving train.
JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:17 pmNot only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.
Jeremy Grimm October 12, 2016 at 1:34 pmIn March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.
On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.
With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?"
human October 12, 2016 at 9:25 amIt's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule 22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.
Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us.
OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:13 amThis is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.
What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.
It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.
The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."
|
|
|
Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
"'Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer,' Tad Friend wrote in the New Yorker piece. 'Two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation'" [ Mic ]. In other words, ginormous capital investment decisions affecting the world's economy are being made by lunatics with far too much time on their hands, and much more money than sense.
flora October 7, 2016 at 3:44 pm MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 7, 2016 at 4:24 pmre: Guillotine Watch (and "Watch" is very apt in this context).
The Silicon Valley simulation hypothesis is a modern version of the Clockwork Universe theory.Man creates a new technology that roughly models some aspect of the natural world. Some men then insist the natural world in fact models the technology, instead of the other way around. The more things change….
BecauseTradition October 7, 2016 at 5:41 pmThe one possible conclusion is that the human brain is defective.
That means, even the smartest humans are not that smart.
"'Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer,' Tad Friend
Reminds me of a nightmare I had once. I was in Hell. It really wasn't so bad – just about 120F or so and humid! But being a resourceful chap I started trying to dig my way out. I got about 10 feet down when the bottom fell out and I could see below me a lake of fire – stretching as far as I could see.
So if we are in a simulation, the goal should not be try to escape it – impossible – but to pass whatever test we are being subjected to.
Shorter: Some people have more dollars than sense.
|
|
|
Oct 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
psychohistorian | Oct 2, 2016 11:57:54 PM | 26
I have been wanting to share this book review I did in 2009 and I guess now is as good a time as any....PavewayIV | Oct 3, 2016 12:43:34 AM | 28AGNOTOLOGY Book Review
What is Agnotology? What does the Agnotology book say about it? What does Agnotology have to do with capitalism?
Agnotology [The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance] is a book (collection of essays) edited by Robert N Proctor and Londa SchiebingerWhat is Agnotology? It is defined as a term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study)
This term is being forwarded by Robert N. Proctor and others interested in the timely study of ignorance with focus on the manufactured sort. The book begins with a preface by Robert N Proctor who is a professor of History of Science at Stanford University. The subsequent essays are grouped into three Parts:
I ) Secrecy, Selection, and Suppression
II ) Lost Knowledge, Lost Worlds
III ) Theorizing IgnoranceProfessor Proctor's prime example of agnotology centers on the tobacco industry. He touts a quote from an internal 1969 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company memo saying, "Doubt is our product." when showing how this industry had the audacity to spend profits from its customers to brainwash them into believing that there was doubt that smoking causes cancer.
The 4 essayists in part I of the book provide similar manufacturing of ignorance insights in areas of censorship, environmental science, public health and women's orgasms.
The 3 essayists in Part II of the book focus on showing how western society has suppressed medicinal plant knowledge for abortions because they were against them, how the American white man trivialized and ignored the indigenous fossil knowledge of the American Indians and lastly about ignorance in Archeology.
The 4 essayists in Part III of the book expand on the theories of ignorance in ways that are daunting to understand completely let alone summarize. Suffice to say that terms like bounded rationality, confirmation bias, patriarchy, ethnocentrism, social memory, and the evolution of the Precautionary Principle in relation to Risk Management are discussed, analyzed and postulated about.
While much ignorance is really the absence of knowledge, ignorance can also be produced by warriors in ongoing economic, political and cultural battles.
Other examples of agnotology are "intelligent design" or faith based political economies, resistance to global warming, the car centered transportation culture...and of course whether unregulated investment banking is toxic or not.
Pride of ignorance is the biggest impediment for critical thinking individuals to overcome with efforts that appeal to simplistic economic euphemisms like free markets good/ govt regulation bad. The biggest lies are that totally unrestrained corporatism and "free" markets are best and bigger is better. Having faith that the economic fundamentals are supportive of the American dream is akin to so many individuals seemingly unable to evolve beyond Enlightenment understanding of the various religion myths.
One of the concepts that is missing in discussions is that the maximization of self-interest is rarely consistent with the maximization of social interest. A forum is need to reconcile the conflicts between self and social economic interests.
The unstated paradox of Agnotology is that it is the basis of more study of an obvious problem that rational people would consider antisocial behavior, which is what the big complaint is of agnotology claimants. The further frustration is that these studies do not include any proscriptions about making the efforts to propagate disinformation criminal.
psychohistorian@26 - Fascinating. Ponerology. Agnotology. So many books, so much evil, so little time. Proctor's book is now at the top of my wish list. Thanks for posting that.chu teh | Oct 3, 2016 2:07:34 AM | 31You can find the complete Preface here
Agnotology--"... term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study)"Indeed, that includes the compulsion to lie. The USG in 1972/3 sent out the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes with picture-drawings of male and female humans. The female genitals were erased because certain humans were ashamed of nudity. Have a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pioneer_plaque.svg
The idea of Pioneer 10 and 11 was demonstrate, should any intelligent beings in interstellar space discover the probes, what a lying civilization Earth had spawned?
Creating ignorance is often the result of fixed-ideas being implanted into infants by the age of 3. The child henceforth is blocked from rational thinking in many areas. Indeed, the child is unaware that notions and mental movies are doing his "thinking".
|
|
|
Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Si October 4, 2016 at 1:26 pmfajensen October 5, 2016 at 6:59 amYou can dress up what is happening in all sorts of ways. When democracy has been stolen, when the political class has been bought and paid for by a small controlling elite, you have a decline into third world economics. The incentives to start businesses in the US have gone because of the worship of the large corporations who are able to pay for the necessary lobbying so that laws are skewed in their favour.
I guess when you sit in the safety of an academic institution, facing up to nothing more challenging than dreaming up ways to either provide intellectual cover for the plunder, or find ways to increase your take of the available government grants, then what you get is the nonsense above.
There is a very obvious paradigm shift going on which the article goes nowhere near. To do of course means that you would cease to be one of the 'insiders' or useful idiots.
Si October 5, 2016 at 11:38 amObviously, you have never been employed in an academic institution: Unless one is a tenured professor there is no such thing as "safety" in academics.
Most junior-level academics are on two-year contracts. The pay is not that great, there are usually no relocation programs since junior-level academics having a family is considered a dire waste of resources and if one wants to procure something one has to go to meetings with 20++ people who all also want theirs if someone else is getting some. All of these meetings are about managing a flock of spoiled children were a few are being given sweets. Most lower level academics (in the career sense) eventually "fail out" to private business and settle down once they realize that they will never make tenure, not even at a lower ranking university. This usually happens at the age of 30 or so.
Very few get full tenure. For those few finally becoming a tenured professor there is *still* the everlasting scrabbling for external funding, perpetual fights with other colleges over internal funding (now at a much higher level and against people truly skilled in the art, said skills acquired through years of dedicated effort in "undoing the competition"), and of course for space, resources and the good students.
A few tenured professors can do like Tolkien did: "Fuck this bullshit business, I'll just be writing books which totally tangentially involves my specialty and teach, so they can't sack me".
Others will whore themselves out to whoever pays for specific results and maybe end up in a think-tank at 10x or even 50x the academic salary.
Most will just find a way to muddle through and enjoy what they are getting.
Firstly, yes I have.
Secondly I think your summary of who makes it to tenure is pretty accurate and sums up what it takes to get there and to stay there.
I was commenting on the mind-set of the people who wrote the article and their indulgence in a framing which misses so much that it beggars belief.
|
|
|
Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Jeremy Grimm October 5, 2016 at 3:03 pm
likbez October 5, 2016 at 5:42 pmHave discoveries and developments in science and innovation reached a point of diminishing returns? I don't think so - at least not of necessity. The moment Science and Innovation became the mistreated handmaidens of the monopolistic cartels which dominate today's economy they were effectively neutered and drugged under the influence of money and petty privilege.
Big capital is not fond of innovation nor does it tolerate discovery. Science and Innovation are anathema to the the doctrine of maximizing profits on capital already invested. While we enjoy the benefits of neoliberal "Free Markets" we should expect that no more than a trickle of discovery and innovation might ooze between the cracks.
Jeremy."The moment Science and Innovation became the mistreated handmaidens of the monopolistic cartels which dominate today's economy they were effectively neutered and drugged under the influence of money and petty privilege."
This is a great observation -- Thank you.
The ability of capital to buy academic researchers and use them as tools is really amazing. On the level, which Academician Lysenko did not even dreamed off.
I think this can be considered as a modern flavor of Lysenkoism.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pmPlenue , September 12, 2016 at 3:45 pmSlot-machine "science":
The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to downplay the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead.
The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at UCSF and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.
A trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today's dollars to publish a 1967 review of sugar, fat and heart research.
The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group. The article, published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine , minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.
One of the scientists paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the USDA, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the government's dietary guidelines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
Shocked? That was decades ago. But today, the sugar industry is STILL paying politicians for ironclad protection from competition:
Imports of sugar into the United States are governed by tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), which allow a certain quantity of sugar to enter the country under a low tariff [meaning the rest is walled out].
USDA establishes the annual quota volumes for each federal fiscal year (beginning October 1) and the U.S. Trade Representative allocates the TRQs among countries.
Buying scientists - profitable
Buying politicians - pricelesstegnost , September 12, 2016 at 4:59 pmIt can go both ways though. The WHO managed to declare glyphosate 'probably carcinogenic' by expressly ignoring the substantial evidence to the contrary.
Plenue , September 12, 2016 at 5:14 pmI think that falls under "buying scientists". There is no global warming and glyphosate is better for you than juice, just like fracking water prevents cavities.
tegnost , September 12, 2016 at 5:17 pmSo do you strawman often?
tegnost , September 12, 2016 at 5:38 pmno but I'm really obnoxious, how bout some links for that irrefutable science
tegnost , September 12, 2016 at 6:11 pmalso not sure you understand straw manning, I referred directly to haygoods comment, re buying science, you brought up the ancillary/irrelevant glyphosate.
Sugar is socially poisonous, at the least, see diabetes
Image result for straw manning
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."
haygood didn't say anything about glyphosate, it's relevant to sugar how?JTMcPhee , September 12, 2016 at 6:36 pmhttp://www.nature.com/news/debate-rages-over-herbicide-s-cancer-risk-1.18794
from the link…"Finally, the two bodies looked at different evidence. EFSA assessed some studies conducted by industry groups that were excluded from the IARC analysis. The IARC team looked only at evidence that is in the public domain and available to independent scientists to review, says Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist at the IARC and one of the authors of its glyphosate study2."
what's that? the pro glyphosate used industry science? Say it ain't so!
Also…"Firstly, the two bodies were not assessing exactly the same thing. EFSA looked only at glyphosate, whereas IARC looked at both the chemical itself and the products it is used in. EFSA says that some studies have shown genotoxic effects (DNA damage) from products containing glyphosate and some have not, and it is likely that some of these effects are down to other compounds in these products, rather than glyphosate itself."
and last but not least..does efsa think glyphosate is safe?".Not entirely. EFSA revised existing limits on safe daily doses for exposure to glyphosate. It also proposes - for the first time in the European Union - that there should be a limit on how much glyphosate is safe for a person to ingest in a short period of time."
like ambrits comment on codes vs. what contractors actually do (there's the right way, and there's the way we're doing it)you're trusting those pesticide applicators measuring skills and concern for others health more than i do.Plenue , September 12, 2016 at 7:49 pmIt's not the main chlorinated pesticides in Agent Orange that fokks us veterans and Vietnamese over, it's the stuff that gets produced in side reactions, molecules like 2,3,7,8-dibenzodioxins and -dibenzofurans. Which strongly bioaccumulate and kind of hang around forever. As do the other shitbits spewed out by Our Imperial Forces, like depleted uranium with its mix of go-alongs, and so on…
Fundamental point is that we humans, taken as a bunch, are pretty much worthless as participants in "The Great Disney Circle of Life…" Not just worthless, but actively "disruptive" and patently destructive. Sugar bad, now FL counties spraying shit to try to ":control" Aeides aegiptii mosquitoes that "carry the Deadly Zika Virus" and thereby kill off all kinds of pollinators. Because middle class, or some shit…
tegnost , September 12, 2016 at 9:18 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkxS7BHjHVk
I'd say doing things like completely ignoring a multi-decade USDA study that found no harmful effects resulted from contact with glyphosate reveals bias and a lack of genuine desire to honestly appraise the evidence. And even in the absence (rather, absent from the WHO review) of evidence that the stuff isn't harmful, the evidence that it is dangerous that they included was pitiful at best. And this is presumably the best 'proof' they could scrounge up.
your link is a youtube?
science comes in papers
but then i'd be able to track the funding, wouldn't I?
and the issue was "buying science"
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Jerry Denim , March 9, 2016 at 1:53 pmMojaveWolf , March 9, 2016 at 6:11 pmI really liked Charles Blow's insightful comment about two Black Americas and the great migration. I am white but I like to think that I know a little about Black America. I've travelled and lived all over the US now, but I grew up in the eighties in a small, racially divided southern town. I attended a public school that was 60% black and every black teacher of mine in elementary school was formerly employed by the "separate but equal" black school system prior to desegregation. I didn't realize how close I was to the bad ole' segregated south growing up, but it boggles my mind and certain things make more sense to me now looking back. I was raised by my working mother and two different black nannies. They were surrogate moms to me. I would play with their nieces, nephews and grand-children at their house sometimes and other times at my parents. I even attended church with them on a couple of different occasions. I left the south after graduating college but I didn't forget the lessons of my youth. I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign, that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black voters in the south.
I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are, particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before. The cultural DNA of the diaspora blacks of the north and the blacks that stayed behind is very different. Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west.
There are still plenty of strong pockets of racism today outside of the south, particularly in the northeast, appalachia, and the midwest but nowhere I've visited can compare to racism found in the deep southern states of the Gulf and Mississippi delta region.
Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival.
Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. Clinton keeps running up the delegate score with the support of southern black grannies like the ones who raised me, but she is running out of deep south. Meanwhile Sanders is forging new coalitions and crushing the under-forty vote, so even if he can't win the DNC's rigged primary this year the future looks bright for leaders that want to pick up Sanders mantle in the near future.
Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west.
Very true & excellent point. I grew up in small town Alabama & permanently moved away in January 1990. It is a very pro-establishment place, where, at least back then, people who were willing to be noticeably different had to be very exceptional in some way or willing & able to fend for themselves, otherwise they would be ostracized or bullied. Birmingham & Tuscaloosa were better, at least in pockets, but outside of the university system you were still expected to behave in a very conservative manner. Going home to visit over the years & seeing giant billboards–in cities!–saying things like "Go to church or go to Hell" (that is an exact quote; I shall never forget it; horribly wrongheaded and asinine even from a fundamentalist Christian perspective) or "praise be the glory of the fetus, may those who harm it suffer eternal torment" (not an exact quote but pretty much an exact sentiment on a large # of signs) did not make me change my thoughts a whole hella lot, or–and this is kinda funny in light of my current politics–talking with a group of business owners in an airport who suddenly turned their backs on me & excluded me from conversation when they were trashing Hillary and I said "I like Hillary" & after a shocked silence one of them said "You need to listen to Rush Limbaugh son, learn some things" followed by "I've heard Rush. Not really a fan." That ended that conversation abruptly. Among other things.
And I have (or rather had, kinda lost touch) friends from Alabama involved in state & national democratic politics, and whatever their private inclinations they were just as conservative as the Republicans (among whom I had an equal # of friends) on most things in public, and kept very quiet about issues where they were not with the growing conservative majority there (it should be noted that this is a HORRIBLE long term strategy, if you have actual principles in opposition to the spreading & solidifying right-wing belief system). I had nonetheless expected better from the South, and am still disappointed/horrified at the voting there, but this reminder does explain a lot. With a lot of help from the DNC & MSM, they were convinced Bernie would not win, and might even lose by an amount they would find embarrassing, & knowingly fighting a lost cause is (or was) generally derided back there, and no one wants to be an object of derision. Also, a lot of Southerners just don't like people from the Northeast. End stop. I for some reason thought that would have changed by now, and/or that Bernie was sufficiently atypical for this to be a non-factor anyway. But maybe not. Plus it may be people still consider Hillary a Southerner from her time in Arkansas, and she's getting the "one of us" vote.
but she is running out of deep south.
Indeed. Temperaments out west are very, very different. =)
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
likbez , 06/19/2016 at 11:50 amNick,You are way too quick to dismiss TT concerns. He has some strong points.
Moreover I think you never heard about Lysenkoism, right ?
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#764db80841e4
- http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/lysenkoism.shtml
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Science and scientists are now heavily politicized. A lot of them are just political charlatans spreading nonsense for money and abusing mathematics, using it as smoke screen to hide their disgraceful actions. Take for example neoclassical economists.
Many scientists now have connections and receive funding from military industrial complex or other industrial lobbies which also affects objectivity.
Scientists with integrity of Rutherford are extinct. Now this is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" all over the science.
As such most of them (outside few fields yet not politicized enough, like pure mathematics ) became the same prostitutes for the elite as journalists.
That does not exclude objectivity, but it now can never be taken for granted. Scientific schools struggles can now well be the struggles of influence groups standing behind particular groups of scientists. The attitude should be like in the Russian proverb that Reagan used to love so much: "Trust but verify"
texas tea , 06/19/2016 at 5:34 pm
NickG"But…when it comes to fossil fuels, the political pressure is coming from the fossil fuel industry, to suppress the truth about it's problems."
I believe that to be just flat out wrong. The fossil fuel industry will get along just fine, it is baked in the cake from the standpoint the entirety of our worlds civilization is based on fossil fuels. The advancement of our civilization required it, the continuation of our civilization requires it
(at least in the short and medium terms.) That may/will in change in time because of the depletion of resources and the increasing cost to recover, but as Ron and others have pointed out, not until we have consumed every last drop of recoverable oil, nat gas and coal. Best case it will be photo finish to see if the world can roll out renewables before the impact of peak oil to seriously wreck havoc on the worlds economy and standard of living for those around when it happens. To the degree there is political pressure, I would suggest you try to understand the business side of the issues as they relate to the tax structures for local and state finances and even on a federal level. I suppose you have paid the gasoline tax that keeps roads in repair? I think you understand that oil and gas held in private hands are considered real property right?
Everyone who owns minerals, just like the lands the oil and gas sits under, have a vested interest in the value and are taxed providing income to a great number of people including school systems all across our state. The business interest and employment in all aspects of the production, transportation, refining, and distribution. The motor car companies, the mechanics, the quick stops all across the country. The vested interest in the status quo are far reaching and are seen widely as a benefit. The idea that if just Exxon and the Koch brothers would just shut up everything would be hunky-dory is beyond naive!
likbez , 06/19/2016 at 12:03 pm
How about such thing as Lysenkoism? Is not this a cancer for science, from which there is essentially cures are as difficult to obtain and are as destructive as for regular cancer.IMHO you can view neoclassical economics as a cancer or a modern version of Lysenkoism (and a very successful, dominant one), if you wish (with due apologies to "strict" supply-demand equilibrium believers; of course, in a long run everything comes to equilibrium, but in a long run we all are dead ;-).
How the existence and success of Lysenkoism ( let's say in the form of neoclassical economics ) correlates with your optimism about modern science and scientists ? That is the question to be answered.
See also the post above
http://peakoilbarrel.com/north-dakota-down-over-70000-bpd-in-april/#comment-573372
|
|
|
economistsview.typepad.com
From the NBER Digest:Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, by Jay Fitzgerald : Knowledge accumulation - the process by which new research builds upon prior research - is central to scientific progress, but the way this process works is not well understood.In Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time? (NBER Working Paper No. 21788 ), Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin explore the famous quip by physicist Max Planck. They show that the premature deaths of elite scientists affect the dynamics of scientific discovery. Following such deaths, scientists who were not collaborators with the deceased stars become more visible, and they advance novel ideas through increased publications within the field of the deceased star. These "emerging stars" are often scientists who were not previously active within that field. The results suggest that outsiders to a specific scientific field are reluctant to challenge a research star who is viewed as a leader within that field.
The authors tracked the publication records of scientists - both collaborators and non-collaborators - before and after a "research superstar" died. To narrow the scope of their study, they focused on academics in the life sciences, a sector which is heavily supported by National Institutes of Health funding and produces a high volume of research. They established a list of 12,935 elite scientists using criteria such as the amount of research funding received, publication citations, number of patents, membership in prestigious organizations, and career awards and prizes. They then examined records of 452 of those elite scientists who died prematurely - before retiring or becoming administrators - between 1975 and 2003. Publication data was gathered from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed service, which indexes and tracks articles by research topics, names of authors and coauthors, citations, related articles, and other information from 40,000 publications.The findings confirm previous work showing that the number of articles by collaborators decreased substantially - by about 40 percent - after the death of a star scientist. Publication activity by non-collaborators increased by an average of 8 percent after the death of an elite scientist. By five years after the death, this activity of non-collaborators fully offset the productivity decline of collaborators. "These additional contributions are disproportionately likely to be highly cited," the researchers found. "They are also more likely to be authored by scientists who were not previously active in the deceased superstar's field."Few of the deceased scientists served as editors of academic journals or on committees overseeing the issuance of research grants, so the researchers rule out the possibility that the deceased scientists used their influence to limit who could or could not publish their work or receive grants within their field. Instead, they say, the evidence suggests that outsiders were reluctant to challenge the leadership within research areas in which an elite scientist was active. While entry occurs after a star's passing, it is not monolithic. Key collaborators left behind can regulate entry into the field through the control of intellectual, social, and resource barriers."While coauthors suffer after the passing of a superstar, it is not simply the case that star scientists in a competing lab assume the leadership mantle," the authors conclude. "Rather, the boost comes largely from outsiders who appear to tackle the mainstream questions within the field but by leveraging newer ideas that arise in other domains. This intellectual arbitrage is quite successful - the new articles represent substantial contributions, at least as measured by long-run citation impact."Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 01:24 PM in Economics | Permalink Comments (15)
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
aws., 02/04/2016 at 10:50 pmThe Water Next Time: Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public Science Is BrokenThe Chronicle of Higher Education, By Steve Kolowich February 02, 2016
Q. Do you have any sense that perverse incentive structures prevented scientists from exposing the problem in Flint sooner?
A. Yes, I do. In Flint the agencies paid to protect these people weren't solving the problem. They were the problem. What faculty person out there is going to take on their state, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?
I don't blame anyone, because I know the culture of academia. You are your funding network as a professor. You can destroy that network that took you 25 years to build with one word. I've done it. When was the last time you heard anyone in academia publicly criticize a funding agency, no matter how outrageous their behavior? We just don't do these things.
If an environmental injustice is occurring, someone in a government agency is not doing their job. Everyone we wanted to partner said, Well, this sounds really cool, but we want to work with the government. We want to work with the city. And I'm like, You're living in a fantasy land, because these people are the problem.
|
|
|
www.huffingtonpost.com
In recent years, Yale University's Dan Kahan has lead an interdisciplinary team of scholars in what they call the Cultural Cognition Project, exploring why individuals often abandon logic when it comes to forming beliefs about contentious social, political and science issues: gun control, vaccine safety, climate change, fracking, biotechnology--there is a long list.Kahan and his fellow researchers suggest that many of our most strongly held positions, while dressed in the garb of independent critical thinking, rationality and science, are actually rooted, irrationally, in the tribal-like beliefs of our fellow ideological travelers, our extended families who give form to our cultural identities.
Google matched content |
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: March, 01, 2020
