Friday, December 15, 2006
Hopsicker on the "controlled demolition" theorists
In a couple of previous posts, in the comments section, I once more confronted the ne'er-say-die advocates of the "controlled demolition" theory of the World Trade Center disaster. I make no secret of my hostility toward such theorists. If you're new here, turn to the third column and scroll down to the little cartoon featuring my dog; those two panels should explain my stance. (But please understand that, in reality, the pooch eats like royalty, even on days when I'm doing PB&J.)
Daniel Hopsicker -- who, for some years now, has done the best investigative work on 9/11-related issues -- sent me a letter containing his own response to the CD proponents. With his permission, I will here reprint his words. A word of warning: If you think I have a fearsome snarl, wait 'til you see this guy's fangs...!
I can understand his anger, since he has devoted his energies to an area of investigation where bad theories, bad science, and some outright lies threaten to overwhelm good research.
Daniel's words will come after the jump. (He asked me to edit, not knowing that I'm a notoriously heavy editor.)
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
First, I think one should shun any gathering called "Conspiracy Con," and one should avoid the sort of people who attend such events. Conspiracism is a subculture -- emphasis on the sub. The larger culture is what matters.
That said, we must admit that the sloppiest conspiracy researchers often have a surprisingly wide impact on society. On several occasions, I've overheard people on L.A. buses discuss various controlled demolition theories of 9/11. The things I've heard were pretty silly, even by CD standards. "You can see the building explode before the plane hits it!" Things like that.
And yet this kind of nonsense reaches people who will never know (for example) that Atta had a close relationship with a spooky fellow like Wolfgang Bohringer.
I've been following politics, parapolitics, and "fringe" theories since the 1970s. Starting in the mid-1980s, my interest became quite serious. Early on, I noted that a sort of "Law of Inverse Importance" comes into play whenever one takes an interest in any topic reeking of espionage or underhanded politics. Piffle overwhelms the serious, and bad research drowns out the worthwhile stuff.
In the mid 1990s, paranoid chic took hold; The X-Files was on the air and in the air. I became frustrated and infuriated with the suddenly-popular conspiracy buffs. They kept regaling me with the same canards:
JFK was shot by his driver. The Holocaust never happened. A UFO landed at Roswell. Project Monarch creates hypnotized sex slaves. The Illuminati controls the world. All your personal information is fed into a computer in Belgium nicknamed 'The Beast.' Nathan Meyer Rothschild said "Give me control over a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Conspiracy junkies became so desperate for a new fix that they no longer derived any satisfaction from the merely real. The antics of actual spooks, crooks, weapons dealers and corrupt politicians seemed dull when compared to all those juicy tales of underground alien bases and devil-worshiping Freemasons.
Paranoid chic pretty much played itself out after the Clinton impeachment. Now, however, I see signs that the dismal mind-set of the mid-1990s may be returning.
More people will see Loose Change than will watch 9/11: Press for Truth. Nonsensical assertions about (say) the collapse of World Trade Center 7 receive a wide audience, while few know that the United States military allowed plane-loads of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan.
The truth of any historical controversy is usually squeezed between the Official Story and the Semi-Official Alternative Story. On one hand, you have the W-approved version of reality. On the other, you have the Fantasyland vision of missiles plowing into the Pentagon.
One or the other. No Option Three.
But there are other avenues of investigation, and those roads, I feel, will get us closer to the truth.
Now, I know that many of you will want to fill the comments section with the Gospel of the Controlled Demolition. Some have accused me of censorship because I usually do not allow the preaching of that Gospel in these pages, just as I do not lot allow the preaching of fundamentalist Christianity on my doorstep.
Let me explain my hard-line stance. In my view, sites such as Daily Kos or Democratic Underground are public spaces. But a blog such as this one does not belong to the public. This is my home. You are visitors. Guests. And you are all quite welcome, as long as you do not insult your host or go out of your way to annoy him.
That doesn't mean that you have to agree with your host. If you were at my table sharing a bowl of chili, you would be encouraged to debate and argue.
But if your host signals that he does not want to hear for the zillionth time a recitation that annoyed him on the first dozen hearings, then for God's sake, take the hint and shut up. Act civilized. Agree to disagree. Do not pursue the matter beyond the boundaries of politeness. You have plenty of other places to say your catechism.
Back in the late 1960s, a friend of my Mom's put a sign on her front door: "DIG OR SPLIT." A sound policy, that. If you dig not, then stay not. Understood?
Now, in just this one instance, I will allow any CD zealot who wants to comment on this post to say whatever he or she feels like saying. Don't expect me to read or to respond to your comments, but feel free to recite all of those "facts" that you seem to think I've never encountered before. 'Tis the season of The Nutcracker, so a little nuttiness might prove appropos.
Daniel Hopsicker -- who, for some years now, has done the best investigative work on 9/11-related issues -- sent me a letter containing his own response to the CD proponents. With his permission, I will here reprint his words. A word of warning: If you think I have a fearsome snarl, wait 'til you see this guy's fangs...!
I can understand his anger, since he has devoted his energies to an area of investigation where bad theories, bad science, and some outright lies threaten to overwhelm good research.
Daniel's words will come after the jump. (He asked me to edit, not knowing that I'm a notoriously heavy editor.)
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
I recently got to witness first-hand why one researcher suggested the 9/11 "Truth Movement" might more accurately be called the 9/11 UFO Cult, due to the presence of an absurdly-large contingent of people with truly bizarre belief systems.My response to all of the above:
One such individual, in an email bristling with hostility, recently demanded I admit that explosives had been placed in the World Trade Center before the attack. Otherwise, I must perforce immediately explain to him how terrorists could possibly have made WTC Building 7 fall.
I'm sure you've met the same fate. And I'm afraid I was rather, um, intemperate in the use of capital letters in my response:I UNCOVER MORE FACTS -- NOT OPINIONS OR SPECULATION -- ABOUT 9/11 EVERY MONTH THAN THE ENTIRE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT HAS DURING THE ENTIRE COURSE OF ITS KHASHOGGI-FUNDED HISTORY.Not realizing he had been beaten by the superior force of my, um, rapier wit, my interrogator next tried the snide approach:
You say they knew the attack was coming and they didn't do a thing to stop it. If you believe that, FIND THE FUCKING EVIDENCE AND I'LL BE THE FIRST TO CONGRATULATE YOU. It's NOT altogether inconceivable that you're right, and that they let it happen.
But the MOST that can be said about that bit of speculation is that it remains to be seen. And that is a far cry from you 9/11 truth goons, who uniformly find it difficult to conceive of 19 Arab men hating us enough to blow themselves up. If there weren't hundreds, no THOUSANDS of Arab suicide bombers, there might be a rationale for questioning the motives of the 19 hijackers. But there isn't.
The reason the govt is covering up, based on evidence I uncovered, and not on bullshit speculation, is that during the SAME month that Atta arrived to attend his flight school, the OWNER of the flight school had his Lear jet confiscated by DEA agents with submachine guns, who found 43 pounds of heroin on board. That's not speculation. That's fact. And it is to OBSCURE that fact that Adnan Khashoggi's minions started spreading money around to scumbags and refugees from Benny Hinn revivals, who pretend to be looking for the truth.
I have laid out the evidence in black and white about the flight school owner's heroin bust. Yet who among you sorry-ass creeps has publicized it or attempted to learn more by actually investigating? Don't waste your time looking. The answer is NO-ONE."Is this really Daniel Hopsicker, about whom I read with interest in the book "Fleshing Out Skull and Bones" by Kris Millegan, or some snot-nosed 9 year old who has hijacked his computer? It looks like you didn't get invited back to the Conspiracy Con in 2006. I wonder why?"Snot-nosed? Now I was steamed.
So before replying a second time, I did a quick search and discovered that my interrogator is clearly outside what the mainstream might call "ordinary consensual reality."
For example, according to his website, the most important threat facing the world today is that of "alien locusts" infesting our planet. As if this frightening news weren't enough, he wants also to alert us to this piece of breaking news:
"PASTOR JOHN STOCKER OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ENDORSES EARTHQUAKE RESURRECTION."
Earthquake resurrection is a new one on me, and I thought I had heard it all. So I wrote him back, alluding heavily, as you might expect, to his research into alien locusts. In his response he delivered the funniest line I've read in recent memory:"I agree that 'alien locust attack' may sound funny to someone who hasn't researched the UFO and alien abduction phenomena with a biblical worldview as a foundation."When I stopped laughing, I realized that he was right. In my cursory ruminations about alien abduction, I have never once taken the biblical worldview. So I might have mentioned this in my final retort:"Dude, I knew I was gonna lose the alien locust community when I told you what an idiot you are. If you thought you were emailing someone who suffers fools gladly, think again. I'm a serious writer and researcher. You're a millennialist clown."Two days later, someone called "citizen spook" decided I was the CIA's answer to everything ailing our great Republic, which is no doubt just a coincidence.
"You really should join the Shriners; at least then you'd be able to ride around in those little cars and wear a fez. Get psychiatric help. Try to resist the idea that you're needed on the front lines of the fight against the alien locusts. Say a prayer. Smell some flowers. And please, remember to take your meds."
Here's the seriously scary part: People opposing the Bush Administration's official story about 9/11 usually have anything but a "biblical foundation as a worldview." Right? In fact, that's what most of us find so creepy about Bush. But the 9/11 Truth Movement is stocked with true believers in everything from Jesus to Urantia.
Even the leading light of the movement, David Griffin, is a divinity professor, of all things, whose books have been touted endlessly in email from well-organized 9/11 truth spammers.
And yet they apparently hate Bush so much they think he's responsible for the attack.
Something here does not, um, parse…
Dr. Griffin, we have learned, recently gave an address entitled "9/11 and Demonic Consciousness.""My thesis is that the attacks of 9/11 were products of demonic consciousness, with 'the demonic' understood as an emergent reality that is diametrically opposed to the creative power of the universe and strong enough to threaten its purposes."People spouting off about "demonic consciousness" usually get sent to the nearest emergency room.
And then there's Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones, prominent in Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He believes an incendiary substance, Thermite, was bolstered by sulfur to generate the exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.
Sulfur has traditionally been associated with the demonic. To his credit, Prof. Jones refrains from reminding us of this fact.
Jones is, however, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and has published a scientific paper called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America." This paper details the archeological clues he has found supporting the belief that Jesus Christ visited Latin America after his resurrection, as chronicled in the Book of Mormon.
Anyone who can find Jesus in South America 2000 years ago is capable, clearly, of finding pretty much anything he wants to, anytime at all.
The bottom line is that this debate would be pretty funny if there weren't 3000 people dead.
Instead, the situation is Orwellian. Disinfo writ large. And it didn't happen by accident.
The Army's got a 1200-man psyops unit. I'll bet they aren't all tasked overseas.
-- Daniel Hopsicker
First, I think one should shun any gathering called "Conspiracy Con," and one should avoid the sort of people who attend such events. Conspiracism is a subculture -- emphasis on the sub. The larger culture is what matters.
That said, we must admit that the sloppiest conspiracy researchers often have a surprisingly wide impact on society. On several occasions, I've overheard people on L.A. buses discuss various controlled demolition theories of 9/11. The things I've heard were pretty silly, even by CD standards. "You can see the building explode before the plane hits it!" Things like that.
And yet this kind of nonsense reaches people who will never know (for example) that Atta had a close relationship with a spooky fellow like Wolfgang Bohringer.
I've been following politics, parapolitics, and "fringe" theories since the 1970s. Starting in the mid-1980s, my interest became quite serious. Early on, I noted that a sort of "Law of Inverse Importance" comes into play whenever one takes an interest in any topic reeking of espionage or underhanded politics. Piffle overwhelms the serious, and bad research drowns out the worthwhile stuff.
In the mid 1990s, paranoid chic took hold; The X-Files was on the air and in the air. I became frustrated and infuriated with the suddenly-popular conspiracy buffs. They kept regaling me with the same canards:
JFK was shot by his driver. The Holocaust never happened. A UFO landed at Roswell. Project Monarch creates hypnotized sex slaves. The Illuminati controls the world. All your personal information is fed into a computer in Belgium nicknamed 'The Beast.' Nathan Meyer Rothschild said "Give me control over a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."
Conspiracy junkies became so desperate for a new fix that they no longer derived any satisfaction from the merely real. The antics of actual spooks, crooks, weapons dealers and corrupt politicians seemed dull when compared to all those juicy tales of underground alien bases and devil-worshiping Freemasons.
Paranoid chic pretty much played itself out after the Clinton impeachment. Now, however, I see signs that the dismal mind-set of the mid-1990s may be returning.
More people will see Loose Change than will watch 9/11: Press for Truth. Nonsensical assertions about (say) the collapse of World Trade Center 7 receive a wide audience, while few know that the United States military allowed plane-loads of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan.
The truth of any historical controversy is usually squeezed between the Official Story and the Semi-Official Alternative Story. On one hand, you have the W-approved version of reality. On the other, you have the Fantasyland vision of missiles plowing into the Pentagon.
One or the other. No Option Three.
But there are other avenues of investigation, and those roads, I feel, will get us closer to the truth.
Now, I know that many of you will want to fill the comments section with the Gospel of the Controlled Demolition. Some have accused me of censorship because I usually do not allow the preaching of that Gospel in these pages, just as I do not lot allow the preaching of fundamentalist Christianity on my doorstep.
Let me explain my hard-line stance. In my view, sites such as Daily Kos or Democratic Underground are public spaces. But a blog such as this one does not belong to the public. This is my home. You are visitors. Guests. And you are all quite welcome, as long as you do not insult your host or go out of your way to annoy him.
That doesn't mean that you have to agree with your host. If you were at my table sharing a bowl of chili, you would be encouraged to debate and argue.
But if your host signals that he does not want to hear for the zillionth time a recitation that annoyed him on the first dozen hearings, then for God's sake, take the hint and shut up. Act civilized. Agree to disagree. Do not pursue the matter beyond the boundaries of politeness. You have plenty of other places to say your catechism.
Back in the late 1960s, a friend of my Mom's put a sign on her front door: "DIG OR SPLIT." A sound policy, that. If you dig not, then stay not. Understood?
Now, in just this one instance, I will allow any CD zealot who wants to comment on this post to say whatever he or she feels like saying. Don't expect me to read or to respond to your comments, but feel free to recite all of those "facts" that you seem to think I've never encountered before. 'Tis the season of The Nutcracker, so a little nuttiness might prove appropos.
The reason the govt is covering up, based on evidence I uncovered, and not on bullshit speculation, is that during the SAME month that Atta arrived to attend his flight school, the OWNER of the flight school had his Lear jet confiscated by DEA agents with submachine guns, who found 43 pounds of heroin on board.
Look, I agree that focusing on CD is counterproductive in many ways, but to believe the whole monstrous cover-up was engineered to hide a drugs-and-guns bust is beyond my ability to conceive. Is he leaving something out of his letter, Joe, or are you?
who uniformly find it difficult to conceive of 19 Arab men hating us enough to blow themselves up. If there weren't hundreds, no THOUSANDS of Arab suicide bombers, there might be a rationale for questioning the motives of the 19 hijackers. But there isn't.
Yes, there are probably "hundreds, if not thousands" of Arab suicide bombers, but what Hopsicker seems to be saying here is, "believe the official story of the 19 hijackers." Sorry, can't go there, either. Too many indications of stolen indentities, alive-and-well hijackers, etc. I've no doubt that Arab terrorists participated in the crime, but as the ONLY perpetrators? Is this really what Hopsicker is saying? He invests the hijackers with the same motives as the Bush administration does, after all.
So according to Hopsicker, the official version is correct- the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, they really did drive those planes into those buildings with no help from the Bushies, and the 9/11 commission hid all that evidence of gov't complicity because some flight-school owner had been busted for drugs and guns. Huh? What am I missing? I'm willing to believe I'm misinterpreting what Hopsicker is saying here, that something is being left out of his missive. Help me Joe, please, to understand this if I'm wrong.
If the admin didn't know it was coming, why did Cheney order the stand down? (Mineta testimony to 9/11 Commission) Was everything a coincidence? Why the war games? Oh, hell, read it all here:
Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
Look, I agree that focusing on CD is counterproductive in many ways, but to believe the whole monstrous cover-up was engineered to hide a drugs-and-guns bust is beyond my ability to conceive. Is he leaving something out of his letter, Joe, or are you?
who uniformly find it difficult to conceive of 19 Arab men hating us enough to blow themselves up. If there weren't hundreds, no THOUSANDS of Arab suicide bombers, there might be a rationale for questioning the motives of the 19 hijackers. But there isn't.
Yes, there are probably "hundreds, if not thousands" of Arab suicide bombers, but what Hopsicker seems to be saying here is, "believe the official story of the 19 hijackers." Sorry, can't go there, either. Too many indications of stolen indentities, alive-and-well hijackers, etc. I've no doubt that Arab terrorists participated in the crime, but as the ONLY perpetrators? Is this really what Hopsicker is saying? He invests the hijackers with the same motives as the Bush administration does, after all.
So according to Hopsicker, the official version is correct- the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, they really did drive those planes into those buildings with no help from the Bushies, and the 9/11 commission hid all that evidence of gov't complicity because some flight-school owner had been busted for drugs and guns. Huh? What am I missing? I'm willing to believe I'm misinterpreting what Hopsicker is saying here, that something is being left out of his missive. Help me Joe, please, to understand this if I'm wrong.
If the admin didn't know it was coming, why did Cheney order the stand down? (Mineta testimony to 9/11 Commission) Was everything a coincidence? Why the war games? Oh, hell, read it all here:
Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
On the one hand are people who believe everything, and can't wait for you to hear about it. On the other hand, those who believe nothing, and wish the other side would STFU, as you and Hopsicker do. Sorry, folks, Neither extreme is tenable, you're both full of yourselevs, and I don't believe either one of you.
Heavily-edited or not, this is simply a mean-spirited rant. Believe what I believe or you're a f**king idiot! (Honestly, somebody give this guy a nice sedative.) Hopsicker is supposed to be credible? Well, if so, here he is certainly not being a very good ambassador to his own theories. This rant should not have been posted at all. It's so amazingly childish and intolerant.
Unfortunately Joseph, by publishing those two long wandering screeds above, both Hopsicker's and yours, you confirm that most of your position is based on personal supposition.
In other words you are studiously ignoring evidence that is staring you and all of us in the face demanding investigation. That is the explosions clearly shown in videos where debris is blown up and out as the buildings collapse. That will be my only mention of CD here as I understand that this is a dedicated no-CD blog and I don't want to irritate you unnecessarily.
Assuming that this is not a pro-19-Arabs blog, I must ask where the evidence for 19 Arabs is. Evidence that Atta indeed flew a plane into WTC and is dead? I haven't seen it and I have read a lot in the last 5 years. That story was created by the perps, ready to dump on the public before any questions were asked.
Now I know you do a lot of research and very good writing - I read most of your and Dr. Elsewhere's stuff. I also know that any researcher can and does pick & choose where to look. Do us all a favor and back off the accusations of those who choose to look where you won't.
Pleased that you and Hopsicker are in agreement; that can't make your team unimpeachable however.
In other words you are studiously ignoring evidence that is staring you and all of us in the face demanding investigation. That is the explosions clearly shown in videos where debris is blown up and out as the buildings collapse. That will be my only mention of CD here as I understand that this is a dedicated no-CD blog and I don't want to irritate you unnecessarily.
Assuming that this is not a pro-19-Arabs blog, I must ask where the evidence for 19 Arabs is. Evidence that Atta indeed flew a plane into WTC and is dead? I haven't seen it and I have read a lot in the last 5 years. That story was created by the perps, ready to dump on the public before any questions were asked.
Now I know you do a lot of research and very good writing - I read most of your and Dr. Elsewhere's stuff. I also know that any researcher can and does pick & choose where to look. Do us all a favor and back off the accusations of those who choose to look where you won't.
Pleased that you and Hopsicker are in agreement; that can't make your team unimpeachable however.
Neither of the posts explained World Trade Center Building 7. Why is it so obvious that this building should have just collapsed onto itself suddenly?
Jones isn't the only one agreeing with the CD theories. If they're so incredible, why did the government never officially test the steel for thermate or sulfur residue? It would have put to rest the "conspiracy theorists" who dare to ask questions.
Why do you have to be profane and condescending in the post in order to support your viewpoint?
Remember, 9-11 is much bigger than any one person.
Jones isn't the only one agreeing with the CD theories. If they're so incredible, why did the government never officially test the steel for thermate or sulfur residue? It would have put to rest the "conspiracy theorists" who dare to ask questions.
Why do you have to be profane and condescending in the post in order to support your viewpoint?
Remember, 9-11 is much bigger than any one person.
Joe, I am a true fan of your writing and intellect - except on this subject.
You and Hopsicker are both pushing strawman arguments:
"One or the other. No Option Three."
No insult intended, but this sounds a lot like our Decider in Chief.
Thoughtful, reasonable people see meaningful information in nuances that demagogues (and I exclude you from that group) willfully ignore.
In this case, some 9/11 events (the air hijacking exercises and the collapse of WTC 7 especially) have not been explained adequately under the official story. It's just as reasonable to ask why that's the case as it is to point out the holes in the CD theory.
The fact that you can point to loonies who believe in CD doesn't mean it's a bankrupt hypothesis - lots of loonies believe in things that normal people take for granted. That's an empty argument.
The bottom line for me, as I've stated in comments to related posts, is that it's very difficult to prove a negative. You've said yourself that the evidence to support the CD theory is not conclusive. That isn't a sufficient logical basis to assert that the theory is wrong, or that its proponents are all rapture wackos - in fact, the very assertion that all believers in the CD theory are in the lunatic fringe is a classic ad hominem tactic, used by those with weaker intellects than yours to deflect substantive debate.
You owe it to your intelligent readers - and to yourself - to entertain the arguments of those who believe neither the official cover story nor the "alien locust" theories.
Best,
Myxzptlk
You and Hopsicker are both pushing strawman arguments:
"One or the other. No Option Three."
No insult intended, but this sounds a lot like our Decider in Chief.
Thoughtful, reasonable people see meaningful information in nuances that demagogues (and I exclude you from that group) willfully ignore.
In this case, some 9/11 events (the air hijacking exercises and the collapse of WTC 7 especially) have not been explained adequately under the official story. It's just as reasonable to ask why that's the case as it is to point out the holes in the CD theory.
The fact that you can point to loonies who believe in CD doesn't mean it's a bankrupt hypothesis - lots of loonies believe in things that normal people take for granted. That's an empty argument.
The bottom line for me, as I've stated in comments to related posts, is that it's very difficult to prove a negative. You've said yourself that the evidence to support the CD theory is not conclusive. That isn't a sufficient logical basis to assert that the theory is wrong, or that its proponents are all rapture wackos - in fact, the very assertion that all believers in the CD theory are in the lunatic fringe is a classic ad hominem tactic, used by those with weaker intellects than yours to deflect substantive debate.
You owe it to your intelligent readers - and to yourself - to entertain the arguments of those who believe neither the official cover story nor the "alien locust" theories.
Best,
Myxzptlk
I agree that 'conspiracy conventions' seem kind of absurd and counter-productive just on its face.
I also think that the events of 9/11 are quite puzzling. I'm agnostic regarding any particular theories at this time as data has been obscured and omitted.
I don't think it necessary to try to defend every point of the 'official version' of events any more than I do to automatically dismiss information provided by the 'conspiracy' side of the crowd.
That conspiracies do exist is recognized by law, so the word 'consipiracy' cannot be automatically used to discredit an argument that contradicts 'officially sanctioned reality.'
I think that the pathology demonstrated in the behavior of the administration is so obviously deceitful, psychotic and dangerous as to be plainly evident to most people ...even people who may be a little bit crazy.
For those who dismiss this with a mere turn of the blind eye ...you're every bit as dangerous and unbalanced as those who insist that it was alien horse poachers who brought the towers down. You represent one half of a projected dichotomy in a multiple choice reality.
The section that sought to paint Steve Jones as a religious nut to discredit his scientific capability was purely propagandistic, as even that writer has to admit, Mr Jones has kept his religious beliefs out of it, and in fact was a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000. ...Not to mention that he created a very neat solar cooker.
This sort of bias that seeks to discredit anyone holding a contrary view, rather than truly and impartially examining the data is everybit as wrong as those who disclude the possibility that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Bliss:
Alamantra
I also think that the events of 9/11 are quite puzzling. I'm agnostic regarding any particular theories at this time as data has been obscured and omitted.
I don't think it necessary to try to defend every point of the 'official version' of events any more than I do to automatically dismiss information provided by the 'conspiracy' side of the crowd.
That conspiracies do exist is recognized by law, so the word 'consipiracy' cannot be automatically used to discredit an argument that contradicts 'officially sanctioned reality.'
I think that the pathology demonstrated in the behavior of the administration is so obviously deceitful, psychotic and dangerous as to be plainly evident to most people ...even people who may be a little bit crazy.
For those who dismiss this with a mere turn of the blind eye ...you're every bit as dangerous and unbalanced as those who insist that it was alien horse poachers who brought the towers down. You represent one half of a projected dichotomy in a multiple choice reality.
The section that sought to paint Steve Jones as a religious nut to discredit his scientific capability was purely propagandistic, as even that writer has to admit, Mr Jones has kept his religious beliefs out of it, and in fact was a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000. ...Not to mention that he created a very neat solar cooker.
This sort of bias that seeks to discredit anyone holding a contrary view, rather than truly and impartially examining the data is everybit as wrong as those who disclude the possibility that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Bliss:
Alamantra
Regarding building 7...
Why is it so impossible for people to believe that the damn building fell due to damage sustained from the fall of the Twin Towers?
The two (pretty much) largest buildings in the world come collapsing down in seconds, debris goes everywhere, the ground shakes like a gigantic earthquake, and people actually believe building 7 was intentionally leveled???
Idiots! Nutcases! Disinfo freaks!
GET A LIFE!!!
Why is it so impossible for people to believe that the damn building fell due to damage sustained from the fall of the Twin Towers?
The two (pretty much) largest buildings in the world come collapsing down in seconds, debris goes everywhere, the ground shakes like a gigantic earthquake, and people actually believe building 7 was intentionally leveled???
Idiots! Nutcases! Disinfo freaks!
GET A LIFE!!!
Hey Joe- I see Team Disinfo has tagged you in your comments.....
I never could understand why so many people seem to think that if you prove the buildings were blown up-somehow you were also proving it was an inside job.
Even if someone could prove that the buildings were blown up- that would not prove who blew it up.......
duh
what a waste of grey matter.
I never could understand why so many people seem to think that if you prove the buildings were blown up-somehow you were also proving it was an inside job.
Even if someone could prove that the buildings were blown up- that would not prove who blew it up.......
duh
what a waste of grey matter.
sofla said...
Hopsicker's findings themselves show the government story about the alleged hijackers to be false, IMO. The hooker/strip club/cocaine habits of the alleged hijackers mark them as decidedly not the religious fanatics we were told they were, and which they are required to be, if there is to be any logical way to explain their supposed intentional suicide flights.
For people do not willfully commit known suicide for their beliefs unless those beliefs are fanatically held, and religious beliefs are the ones most commonly held in that fashion. There is no hint in their behaviors (as reported by Hopsicker) that those alleged hijackers were religious fanatics, or political fanatics at suicidal levels of commitment.
Quite the opposite, really, so it seems the story is an elaborate legend of chimerical actors who may not have been who they are claimed to be (as the FBI Director Meuller admitted to little attention then or since), or may not have been there at all at the critical time.
None of them appear in any of the four airline passenger manifests (a legal document carefully double and triple counted to be accurate for liability and accountability reasons), and no explanation of which non-Arabic name (and false id?) the 19 may have flown on instead. None appear in the alleged DNA identifications of the alleged Pentagon-crashing plane, although all other alleged passengers were (impossible though it would be) so identified. None appear on timestamped video recordings at the airports from which they supposedly boarded the planes.
None of the alleged crashed planes have been identified by the time-change marked parts numbers on record for that plane. None of the 'black boxes' were supposedly found in working order although they are designed to take far worse heat and g-forces than they were supposedly subjected to in these crashes). The FBI was denied an investigation of these events, and the normally lawfully required NTSB reconstruction of the plane and its full forensic examination of such a crash wasn't performed, either.
Despite the lack of the normal investigations such airline events would automatically trigger, Bush and Cheney strongly pressured Daschle and Gephardt to have no Congressional investigations, either.
This is inherently suspicious to anyone who knows of these refusals or attempted refusals to have any investigations at all, even of the most automatically and universally performed kinds. Clearly, either the facts that would be uncovered would not support the official storylines, or else other, additional highly suspect facts would come out. (For example, maybe the alleged hijackers were videotaped boarding the planes, but in the company of others, whose roles and identities would be most embarrassing if revealed).
In a situation like this, in which all the ordinary investigations have been officially blocked, and the extraordinary investigations
were initially blocked, then stonewalled, slow-walked, underfunded, and lied to by governmental agencies (the co-chairs admitted later they had considered referring NORAD officials to the DOJ for perjury charges), each of the government's claims (of which they refuse an adequate corroborative investigation) must be regarded as likely false, from a to z.
As to the CD hypothesis, one primary corroborating bit of evidence is the falling of the communications tower. Attached to the central core, it begins to fall immediately, but the central core cannot fail immediately in the non-CD version of this collapse. The squibs out the windows, the extreme damage at the ground floor levels, the exact diagonal cut lines on large steel girders, and the evidently so inexplicable WTC 7 collapse that the 9/11 commission chose not to address it whatsoever, and the FEMA (or was it the NIST?) report stated that the only mechanisms thought possible were unlikely to explain it, all suggest the CD hypothesis may be correct. Pools of molten metal left in the subbasements levels weeks later (despite a continuous flooding of ground zero with water streams) are, I think, impossible to explain without the much higher temperatures associated with CD.
As to Hopsicker's claim that no evidence exists for governmental foreknowledge of the alleged hijackers' plot, that appears quite false. Putin has claimed without contradiction that he ordered a most urgent advance warning be delivered to the WH, as likewise did Egypt's leader (one of them specifying 19 hijackers), among several other countries providing the same warnings. Even the TALIBAN foreign minister (!!) travelled to DC to warn of the same thing, while FBI field agents were memoing their superiors of the same threat from the flight school attendants.
Hopsicker's findings themselves show the government story about the alleged hijackers to be false, IMO. The hooker/strip club/cocaine habits of the alleged hijackers mark them as decidedly not the religious fanatics we were told they were, and which they are required to be, if there is to be any logical way to explain their supposed intentional suicide flights.
For people do not willfully commit known suicide for their beliefs unless those beliefs are fanatically held, and religious beliefs are the ones most commonly held in that fashion. There is no hint in their behaviors (as reported by Hopsicker) that those alleged hijackers were religious fanatics, or political fanatics at suicidal levels of commitment.
Quite the opposite, really, so it seems the story is an elaborate legend of chimerical actors who may not have been who they are claimed to be (as the FBI Director Meuller admitted to little attention then or since), or may not have been there at all at the critical time.
None of them appear in any of the four airline passenger manifests (a legal document carefully double and triple counted to be accurate for liability and accountability reasons), and no explanation of which non-Arabic name (and false id?) the 19 may have flown on instead. None appear in the alleged DNA identifications of the alleged Pentagon-crashing plane, although all other alleged passengers were (impossible though it would be) so identified. None appear on timestamped video recordings at the airports from which they supposedly boarded the planes.
None of the alleged crashed planes have been identified by the time-change marked parts numbers on record for that plane. None of the 'black boxes' were supposedly found in working order although they are designed to take far worse heat and g-forces than they were supposedly subjected to in these crashes). The FBI was denied an investigation of these events, and the normally lawfully required NTSB reconstruction of the plane and its full forensic examination of such a crash wasn't performed, either.
Despite the lack of the normal investigations such airline events would automatically trigger, Bush and Cheney strongly pressured Daschle and Gephardt to have no Congressional investigations, either.
This is inherently suspicious to anyone who knows of these refusals or attempted refusals to have any investigations at all, even of the most automatically and universally performed kinds. Clearly, either the facts that would be uncovered would not support the official storylines, or else other, additional highly suspect facts would come out. (For example, maybe the alleged hijackers were videotaped boarding the planes, but in the company of others, whose roles and identities would be most embarrassing if revealed).
In a situation like this, in which all the ordinary investigations have been officially blocked, and the extraordinary investigations
were initially blocked, then stonewalled, slow-walked, underfunded, and lied to by governmental agencies (the co-chairs admitted later they had considered referring NORAD officials to the DOJ for perjury charges), each of the government's claims (of which they refuse an adequate corroborative investigation) must be regarded as likely false, from a to z.
As to the CD hypothesis, one primary corroborating bit of evidence is the falling of the communications tower. Attached to the central core, it begins to fall immediately, but the central core cannot fail immediately in the non-CD version of this collapse. The squibs out the windows, the extreme damage at the ground floor levels, the exact diagonal cut lines on large steel girders, and the evidently so inexplicable WTC 7 collapse that the 9/11 commission chose not to address it whatsoever, and the FEMA (or was it the NIST?) report stated that the only mechanisms thought possible were unlikely to explain it, all suggest the CD hypothesis may be correct. Pools of molten metal left in the subbasements levels weeks later (despite a continuous flooding of ground zero with water streams) are, I think, impossible to explain without the much higher temperatures associated with CD.
As to Hopsicker's claim that no evidence exists for governmental foreknowledge of the alleged hijackers' plot, that appears quite false. Putin has claimed without contradiction that he ordered a most urgent advance warning be delivered to the WH, as likewise did Egypt's leader (one of them specifying 19 hijackers), among several other countries providing the same warnings. Even the TALIBAN foreign minister (!!) travelled to DC to warn of the same thing, while FBI field agents were memoing their superiors of the same threat from the flight school attendants.
Anon..an itellectually slothful iinvestigater posted remark...
"Even if someone could prove that the buildings were blown up- that would not prove who blew it up.......
duh
what a waste of grey matter.
so here's a possible answer to his query as to not only how the buildings "could have been brought down..but perhaps those responsable for installing explosive charges inside the buildings
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.
for more on this "theory" just google Marvin Bush and 911
"Even if someone could prove that the buildings were blown up- that would not prove who blew it up.......
duh
what a waste of grey matter.
so here's a possible answer to his query as to not only how the buildings "could have been brought down..but perhaps those responsable for installing explosive charges inside the buildings
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record.
for more on this "theory" just google Marvin Bush and 911
intelligent remarks about 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5q2DO7ofnQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9vLJIR69A&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5q2DO7ofnQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9vLJIR69A&mode=related&search=
Another perennial CT rant serving absolutely no purpose in furthering anything.
The Army's got a 1200-man psyops unit. I'll bet they aren't all tasked overseas.
hmmmmm. But really, who needs them.
The Army's got a 1200-man psyops unit. I'll bet they aren't all tasked overseas.
hmmmmm. But really, who needs them.
Well, as an engineer, I can't fathom the physical events of the collapse. At the same time, extraordinary or so-appearing events can occur in an extraordinary event (such as jets crashing into a building).
But, this happened twice. The result is not extraordinary, it has to be explained. To date, it hasn't been. Honestly, everything up to the pancaking part is remotely acceptable, but twice? At that point, we are supposed to accept the total pancaking collapse on faith. Doesn't wash with me. Why does that freak you out?
And nobody speaks of wtc-6, an absolutely extraordinary collapse as well. Same as 7 but the outer walls didn't collapse. That isn't discussed for the same reasons, I suggest that wtc-7 report has yet to be completed. Common sense leads one to simple conclusions which need to be included in hypothesis.
For those who seem offended by my objective perspectives and would rather not look at the evidence... get a life.
But, this happened twice. The result is not extraordinary, it has to be explained. To date, it hasn't been. Honestly, everything up to the pancaking part is remotely acceptable, but twice? At that point, we are supposed to accept the total pancaking collapse on faith. Doesn't wash with me. Why does that freak you out?
And nobody speaks of wtc-6, an absolutely extraordinary collapse as well. Same as 7 but the outer walls didn't collapse. That isn't discussed for the same reasons, I suggest that wtc-7 report has yet to be completed. Common sense leads one to simple conclusions which need to be included in hypothesis.
For those who seem offended by my objective perspectives and would rather not look at the evidence... get a life.
prior to 911 there were evacuations and powerdowns that completely shutdown all systems in the twin towers on 9/8 and 9/9.
extremely important testimony from an employee of a prominent company inside the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcUQg3DadaA&mode=related&search=
extremely important testimony from an employee of a prominent company inside the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcUQg3DadaA&mode=related&search=
OK, now I see your strategy Joseph. Pretend like you are a CD mad dog or Crazy Dog, (or a Sicker Hop up and down, mad cow wanna be), and you attract far more interest and iteligent conversations than "normal". More traffic as the word goes out "free beer and debate here".
911 was the axis of evil for this nation. It is the long awaited turning point and excuse to put into place the fascist police state template that has been floating quietly above our heads for several generations now.
Just because the sicker Hopster ignores the roots of evil in the demonic, and ignorantly dismisses evil incarnate, in our current administration, and apologizes for our precarious condition with the "14 disgruntled Moslems as a reactionary impulse to our Weatern lifestyles" theory, (in fact, they were copying in their own participation in their private lives, with drug running and running in the fast lane themselves).(.unlikely Moslems ), only reveals his personal intellectual limitations in logical deduction.
Because of the 911 tragedy and mass murder, probobly with the complicity of the government and its "secret" henchmen and accomplices in strategic places, we are faced with the demise of all that we hold dear in this inherited "experiment in democracy".
So let's look at all the layers, levaes, nooks , crooks and crannies, of all the results of all the people that study the event. who care enough to recognize the precarious condition of our fragile and vulnerable Republic and are exerting effort to bring to justice the true evil doers that orchestrated it.
The few that controlled the official investigation and its conclusions, and the few that resisted the investigation in the first place are really just like you and me except they are in control of the means of communication throughout the nation..except for the internet and more specifacally you and your blog..so open it up wider mister Cannon and become that place for true and honest and frank discussion of the most important subject to come down the pike since the murder of JFK and the subsequent ten year agonizing and divisive war since the cicvil war.
Be a true American hero and jettison all the gatekeepers that so narrowly define the field of play, since their narrow minds are incapable of seeing the truth.
911 was the axis of evil for this nation. It is the long awaited turning point and excuse to put into place the fascist police state template that has been floating quietly above our heads for several generations now.
Just because the sicker Hopster ignores the roots of evil in the demonic, and ignorantly dismisses evil incarnate, in our current administration, and apologizes for our precarious condition with the "14 disgruntled Moslems as a reactionary impulse to our Weatern lifestyles" theory, (in fact, they were copying in their own participation in their private lives, with drug running and running in the fast lane themselves).(.unlikely Moslems ), only reveals his personal intellectual limitations in logical deduction.
Because of the 911 tragedy and mass murder, probobly with the complicity of the government and its "secret" henchmen and accomplices in strategic places, we are faced with the demise of all that we hold dear in this inherited "experiment in democracy".
So let's look at all the layers, levaes, nooks , crooks and crannies, of all the results of all the people that study the event. who care enough to recognize the precarious condition of our fragile and vulnerable Republic and are exerting effort to bring to justice the true evil doers that orchestrated it.
The few that controlled the official investigation and its conclusions, and the few that resisted the investigation in the first place are really just like you and me except they are in control of the means of communication throughout the nation..except for the internet and more specifacally you and your blog..so open it up wider mister Cannon and become that place for true and honest and frank discussion of the most important subject to come down the pike since the murder of JFK and the subsequent ten year agonizing and divisive war since the cicvil war.
Be a true American hero and jettison all the gatekeepers that so narrowly define the field of play, since their narrow minds are incapable of seeing the truth.
In my opinion Daniel Hopsicker is the very epitomy of the wild eyed conspiracy theorist he accuses others of being.
Whether he is seeking financial gain or merely attention, Hopsicker has a habit of jumping to the most outrageous conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence. He is not a reliable witness.
His suggestion that 9/11 was an episode in a drug war between Bin Laden and the Bush family calls into question his capacity for rational thought. In fact it is Hopsicker over excitedly pushing every political event into the drug paradigm he established in his earlier work.
Whether he is seeking financial gain or merely attention, Hopsicker has a habit of jumping to the most outrageous conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence. He is not a reliable witness.
His suggestion that 9/11 was an episode in a drug war between Bin Laden and the Bush family calls into question his capacity for rational thought. In fact it is Hopsicker over excitedly pushing every political event into the drug paradigm he established in his earlier work.
Funny how a little open discussion shows who has knowledge, intelligence, understanding and the ability to put forth interesting ideas so as to solve a problem.
This is especially interesting because Joseph expected you all to chant a few foaming mouthed words and everyone who visited would see that his not looking at the evidence was a great idea.
Sorry Joseph, your responders are much more enlightened than you on this topic and much more able to not be taken in again.
I guess you just have to wait for everybody to catch up. They did on voting machines and THAT was even considered a "conspiracy theory".
This is especially interesting because Joseph expected you all to chant a few foaming mouthed words and everyone who visited would see that his not looking at the evidence was a great idea.
Sorry Joseph, your responders are much more enlightened than you on this topic and much more able to not be taken in again.
I guess you just have to wait for everybody to catch up. They did on voting machines and THAT was even considered a "conspiracy theory".
Namecalling and ad hominem attacks on people whose theories you and Hopsicker don't like are not a persuasive way of showing how rational and firmly grounded in fact your positions are.
Your postings on most other issues are perceptive and readable. But I don't tend to read the postings that get shrill and snappish.
Your postings on most other issues are perceptive and readable. But I don't tend to read the postings that get shrill and snappish.
The biggest conspiracy theory of all is that 19 guys with boxcutters brought down not 1, not 2, but 4 buildings perfectly into their own footprints.
THAT IS the conspiracy theory.
Controlled demolitions is simply the truth. And 3000 americans died from the truth.
THAT IS the conspiracy theory.
Controlled demolitions is simply the truth. And 3000 americans died from the truth.
I'm quite convinced that this new 'openness' is just a means for more web traffic. Been slow around here perhaps.
Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of sites more than willing to discuss all the angles rationally without leaving out those they personally don't agree with.
Thanks but no thanks. There are plenty of sites more than willing to discuss all the angles rationally without leaving out those they personally don't agree with.
"No Third Way"?
Thank you Joseph, for your endorsement
of "9/11: Press for Truth," the first
well-made 9/11 movie.
Given the existence of "Press for
Truth" I don't understand your claim
that between 9/11 According to W and
Loose Change there is no other
alternative.
Thank you Joseph, for your endorsement
of "9/11: Press for Truth," the first
well-made 9/11 movie.
Given the existence of "Press for
Truth" I don't understand your claim
that between 9/11 According to W and
Loose Change there is no other
alternative.
Re Bozos Rnot4 Bush 4:08 pm
Why is it so impossible for
people to believe that the damn
building fell due to damage
sustained from the fall of the Twin
Towers?
If FEMA or NIST could have made such
a intuitively obvious case, they
would have done so. Instead FEMA
threw up its hands, said the fires
brought WTC7 down but they couldn't
explain how or why, and NIST has
failed to deliver its WTC7 report,
which is now one year overdue.
Why is it so impossible for
people to believe that the damn
building fell due to damage
sustained from the fall of the Twin
Towers?
If FEMA or NIST could have made such
a intuitively obvious case, they
would have done so. Instead FEMA
threw up its hands, said the fires
brought WTC7 down but they couldn't
explain how or why, and NIST has
failed to deliver its WTC7 report,
which is now one year overdue.
Joseph, did it never occur to you that
some of the communications you
believed to be from obnoxious CD
fanatics might deliberately have been
designed to alienate such an influential blogger as yourself who has already revealed his discomfort with 9/11 as a subject matter?
some of the communications you
believed to be from obnoxious CD
fanatics might deliberately have been
designed to alienate such an influential blogger as yourself who has already revealed his discomfort with 9/11 as a subject matter?
Here here!!
I agree 100% - what better way to rid the majority from the debate---wild theorism.
I used to spend a great deal of time researching this issue, but.....what's the point now? It's all left sensible discussion for the surreal. Too bad the madness has drowned out those who have actually spent time interviewing those associated with the terrorists- namely
Daniel Hopsicker.
Hopsicker is the only one who has really had to put his own pocket book into the investigation, with fighting 3 serious lawsuits from those who have ties to the smuggling.
I agree 100% - what better way to rid the majority from the debate---wild theorism.
I used to spend a great deal of time researching this issue, but.....what's the point now? It's all left sensible discussion for the surreal. Too bad the madness has drowned out those who have actually spent time interviewing those associated with the terrorists- namely
Daniel Hopsicker.
Hopsicker is the only one who has really had to put his own pocket book into the investigation, with fighting 3 serious lawsuits from those who have ties to the smuggling.
Margie- I really can't see how someone who is a part of the hooked up elite (Marvin Bush), and sits on a board of a security company that failed to screen the terrorists, and keep them from boarding the plane, proves that there was controlled demolition?
If anything - it explains how someone like Marvin Bush can protect his associates when it comes to incompetence. I am sure there is more of a story here-but it is a serioius stretch when you jump all the way over to WTC demolition on this.
This is another example of how this type of debate has frustrated, discouraged, and even angered, real investigators.
In the future- if you wish to use your ad hominems -spell them correctly.
Thank you.
If anything - it explains how someone like Marvin Bush can protect his associates when it comes to incompetence. I am sure there is more of a story here-but it is a serioius stretch when you jump all the way over to WTC demolition on this.
This is another example of how this type of debate has frustrated, discouraged, and even angered, real investigators.
In the future- if you wish to use your ad hominems -spell them correctly.
Thank you.
The appearance of incompetence in the service of hidden motives is something the Bush administration and Bush family have elevated to an art form. How better to deflect suspicion than to cultivate the appearance of well-intended failure. The fact that those who act "incompetently" are never brought to account, that the acts are never investigated independently, and that clusters of such acts occur so conveniently to the benefit of Bush administration backers and benefactors is undeniable. Those who attribute this pattern to "coincidence" are playing into the hands of the perpetrators.
That's the real significance of 9/11.
That's the real significance of 9/11.
deflecting suspicion with incompetence ......
Exactly- so why would you even consider jumping from obvious elitist corruption of protecting their own from investigation of their "failures " all the way over to WTC CD? I mean, come on, you are going to be laughed right out of the ball park on that one. If you want to talk about protectionism-corrupt nepotism with rewarding contracts- then this story might go forward-but using this to prove Controlled demolition is - sorry to say.......
a crazy battle you are guaranteed to lose.
Sure you could call it coincidence - but no one else did- just you.
The association is at best, suspicious, but that does not=WTC CD. You would be hard pressed to look anywhere in DC/Dulles and not find someone using their connections to get contracts. Bush & Co. reward their own, equally to punishing those who betray.
As they say,
Choose your battles wisely.....
if the so-called "left" thought more cohesively on these type of strategies- we wouldn't even be needing to argue about theories. They bank on that, you know.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you are on the payroll right now.
I wonder because I doubt there could be so many people out there with so much time on their hand...and food in their mouth.
But if you want to talk about rewarding your own/nepotism/elite corruption--look to Barbara Bush and her generous donation....not many can invest in their own son's company and earn a tax write off all in the same transaction.
Exactly- so why would you even consider jumping from obvious elitist corruption of protecting their own from investigation of their "failures " all the way over to WTC CD? I mean, come on, you are going to be laughed right out of the ball park on that one. If you want to talk about protectionism-corrupt nepotism with rewarding contracts- then this story might go forward-but using this to prove Controlled demolition is - sorry to say.......
a crazy battle you are guaranteed to lose.
Sure you could call it coincidence - but no one else did- just you.
The association is at best, suspicious, but that does not=WTC CD. You would be hard pressed to look anywhere in DC/Dulles and not find someone using their connections to get contracts. Bush & Co. reward their own, equally to punishing those who betray.
As they say,
Choose your battles wisely.....
if the so-called "left" thought more cohesively on these type of strategies- we wouldn't even be needing to argue about theories. They bank on that, you know.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you are on the payroll right now.
I wonder because I doubt there could be so many people out there with so much time on their hand...and food in their mouth.
But if you want to talk about rewarding your own/nepotism/elite corruption--look to Barbara Bush and her generous donation....not many can invest in their own son's company and earn a tax write off all in the same transaction.
Anon 9:19, you miss the point I was making in my (unsigned) 4:56 post(perhaps intentionally?)
Corruption ^= culpability for 9/11. But a pattern of corruption that *perfectly* enables the success of the 9/11 attacks and its policy aftermath, including historically *unique* anomolies, combined with:
- No accountability for the "incompetents"
- Half-hearted pursuit of the presumed perpetrators
- No independent investigation into key details of the collapses (e.g., the steel columns)
- Clear holes in the official cover story, and
- At least two megalomaniacal sociopaths at the top of our government with histories of lying, fanatical devotion to accumulating power, and policies that are overtly faschistic
- Not to mention that the President and Vice President had both the motive and the means to organize, enable, or permit the 9/11 attacks
...make it entirely reasonable to suspect the Bush Administration of complicity. In fact, ignoring that possibility is entirely unreasonable. So what reasonable person would put CD off the table?
No one is, as you seem to believe, jumping from the premise of elitist corruption to an unrelated conclusion of 9/11 complicity. Only if you ignore all of the visible evidence - and bear in mind that most of the evidence has been purposefully hidden by our government - only then might one reasonably conclude that complicity, and therefore CD, are beyond the pale. As it seems you are doing.
As for choosing wiser battles, I'm reminded of all of the CW from Democratic "experts" who advised 2004 and 2006 election candidates to avoid talking about the illegal Iraq war, illegal wiretapping on US citizens, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the biggest corporate welfare scandals in the history of this planet. But if you poll Americans on any of those topics, you'll find overwhelming support for Liberal positions. Just as you'll find a very high degree of suspicion about 9/11 and its causes, despite what has been an information vaccum on the subject, in the corporate media.
Finally, I lived and worked in DC for over a decade, so Barbara's garden-variety nepotism and tax fraud strike me as, at best, ho-hum issues. If you're arguing that this is a better place to focus our attention than 9/11 or any of the other important issues raised above, I can only conclude that your motive is to divert attention.
Myxzptlk
Corruption ^= culpability for 9/11. But a pattern of corruption that *perfectly* enables the success of the 9/11 attacks and its policy aftermath, including historically *unique* anomolies, combined with:
- No accountability for the "incompetents"
- Half-hearted pursuit of the presumed perpetrators
- No independent investigation into key details of the collapses (e.g., the steel columns)
- Clear holes in the official cover story, and
- At least two megalomaniacal sociopaths at the top of our government with histories of lying, fanatical devotion to accumulating power, and policies that are overtly faschistic
- Not to mention that the President and Vice President had both the motive and the means to organize, enable, or permit the 9/11 attacks
...make it entirely reasonable to suspect the Bush Administration of complicity. In fact, ignoring that possibility is entirely unreasonable. So what reasonable person would put CD off the table?
No one is, as you seem to believe, jumping from the premise of elitist corruption to an unrelated conclusion of 9/11 complicity. Only if you ignore all of the visible evidence - and bear in mind that most of the evidence has been purposefully hidden by our government - only then might one reasonably conclude that complicity, and therefore CD, are beyond the pale. As it seems you are doing.
As for choosing wiser battles, I'm reminded of all of the CW from Democratic "experts" who advised 2004 and 2006 election candidates to avoid talking about the illegal Iraq war, illegal wiretapping on US citizens, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the biggest corporate welfare scandals in the history of this planet. But if you poll Americans on any of those topics, you'll find overwhelming support for Liberal positions. Just as you'll find a very high degree of suspicion about 9/11 and its causes, despite what has been an information vaccum on the subject, in the corporate media.
Finally, I lived and worked in DC for over a decade, so Barbara's garden-variety nepotism and tax fraud strike me as, at best, ho-hum issues. If you're arguing that this is a better place to focus our attention than 9/11 or any of the other important issues raised above, I can only conclude that your motive is to divert attention.
Myxzptlk
While I have only skimmed these remarks (while holding my nose), I do want to thank all the above writers. Especially the ones who insisted that I printed the above post to increase stats, even though I had already made clear that this topic drives the audience down. But of course, mere reality does not matter to CD enthusiasts.
Now I know that the audience for this blog consists of pseudoscience buffs who, when one physicist in Utah takes a stance against every other scientist in the world, goes for the one over the many.
Thanks, guys. You've made my decision easier.
Of course, you can simply presume that my eldritch NWO masters made the decision for me. Or just go neener neener neener. I can't care: There's plenty of worse shit to care about.
Now I know that the audience for this blog consists of pseudoscience buffs who, when one physicist in Utah takes a stance against every other scientist in the world, goes for the one over the many.
Thanks, guys. You've made my decision easier.
Of course, you can simply presume that my eldritch NWO masters made the decision for me. Or just go neener neener neener. I can't care: There's plenty of worse shit to care about.
If there weren't hundreds, no THOUSANDS of Arab suicide bombers, there might be a rationale for questioning the motives of the 19 hijackers. But there isn't.
LOL. Logical thinking sure isn't one of Hopsicker's strong suits, is it?
If there was a SHRED of evidence that these 19 bozos actually did 9/11, then maybe it would be worth considering the possibility. But there isn't. And Hopsicker has spent years investigating these fuckers. Someone explain that to me.
LOL. Logical thinking sure isn't one of Hopsicker's strong suits, is it?
If there was a SHRED of evidence that these 19 bozos actually did 9/11, then maybe it would be worth considering the possibility. But there isn't. And Hopsicker has spent years investigating these fuckers. Someone explain that to me.
You know what's scary about reading these reactions to you Joe???
They react- rather than reason....
they are about as sound as Bush.....with his methods of war.
I can't imagine all of these people are psyops -but many people are easily manipulated by psyops.
I doubt they know that psyops works both ways--and they are probably too young to remember how the Watergate case broke open the government files. It wasn't loose conspiracy theories, it was a simple burglary bust that was the beginning of their downfall.
sad that simple mechanics of the justice system escapes so many.
sad that so many have forgotten who has focused on the evidence that will hold up in court.
makes me want to give up the internet too.
Post a Comment
<< Home
They react- rather than reason....
they are about as sound as Bush.....with his methods of war.
I can't imagine all of these people are psyops -but many people are easily manipulated by psyops.
I doubt they know that psyops works both ways--and they are probably too young to remember how the Watergate case broke open the government files. It wasn't loose conspiracy theories, it was a simple burglary bust that was the beginning of their downfall.
sad that simple mechanics of the justice system escapes so many.
sad that so many have forgotten who has focused on the evidence that will hold up in court.
makes me want to give up the internet too.
