Saturday, October 20, 2007
9/11 TRANNIES = ASSHOLES
The trannies attack Bill Maher, who kicks ass.
A reminder: I refer to the 9/11 CD enthusiasts as "trannies" because they do not deserve to be called truthers. (If you're confused by my terminology, ask someone hipper than you are what the the term "CD" means in the sexual underground.) Of all the conspiracy-crazed creeps I've encountered during the past 25-or-so years, the trannies have to be the most foolish, the most unreasoning, the most self-destructive, the most utterly lacking in basic social skills, the most...embarrassing.
Let's get something straight: Audience members do NOT have free speech rights. And that's a good thing. If you pay big bucks to see a production of Wicked, would you want some guy in the third row to take over the stage in order to deliver a public lecture on the dangers posed by the Illuminati?
That's the situation we will soon face if we don't teach give this nation's burgeoning legions of conspiracy-crazed creeps a much-needed lesson in public behavior. Time you got the message, fanatics: You do not have the right to do whatever you wish just because you think you've received the beatific vision.
What happened to Maher happened to John Kerry not long ago. Randi Rhodes lies when she tells her audience that ueber-heckler Andy Meyers was tased at that Kerry speech because he was "annoying." Andy was tased because he broke the damn law against creating a public disturbance. He resisted arrest. He would not stop resisting. He was a danger to others. A cop told him: "Calm down or you'll be tased." He refused to calm down. He got what he deserved.
By the way, Randi -- if audience members have an unassailable First Amendment right to free speech, then you are infringing on the rights of your callers when you interrupt them. If audience members speak, they do so by privilege, not by right.
I was shocked to discover that Brad Friedman disagreed with my stance on the Meyer imbroglio. Brad's an actor. What if some convert to the Gospel According to Jim Marrs decided to take over a performance of The Iceman Cometh starring Brad Friedman as Hickey? Brad may be a gentleman, yet even he would, I think, secretly yearn to see the miscreant dealt with harshly.
And just to prove the inherent nature of 9/11 zealots, I'm going to turn off comment moderation. Watch and see. They will act the way they always act, even when it is against their interest to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Blow it out of your ass, gatekeeper. you are the asshole, asshole. all I wonder is how much they're paying you, probably not much, your not just a whore your a cheap whore.
Look it up. lenin was jewish. Trostsky was a jew. Stalin was a half-jew. beria was a jew. Hitler was half-jew. FDR was controlled by the jews when he put New World Order on all of our dollar bills. It's called Divide and Conquer, the doctrine of dialectical materialism as laid about by (jew) Marx who learned about it from (half jew) Hegel. That's why the world trade center went down. Bush, Osama, it's all a puppet show, they control BOTH SIDES.
Two Jews walk into a deli bar and both ask for:
a. Danish
b. a Danish
c. Danishes
d. two Danish
e. two Danishes
Maher's show was a collector's item (John Edwards! Garry Kasparov! the WTC schmuckholes in the audience, and, maybe more than everything else combined, Chris Matthews's virtual silence!!!).
I've got such shpihlkes right now waiting until Naomi Wolf is on CSPAN's BookTV at 9:00 EST (and repeated 3-4 times through Sunday).
It's probably okay to shout 'fire!' in a crowded Ford Pinto, even if there's no fire yet, right?
Face it, most Americans define themselves as consumers, not as citizens. Whether they chose it or they were indoctrinated doesn't matter.
Here's the matter: the First Amendment guarantees access into the public's theater (if you have a ticket). Nothing I know of guarantees having any home-learnin'.
I suppose the only civil solution is always to include on the program someone who will discuss the WTC CD -- the schmuckholes won't want to be removed, so they'll keep their mouths shut -- but also making sure you always run out of time before the discussion.
FC'sS, turn comment moderating back on!
Not very good manners by the audience? Sure. But this is a fight Bill Maher picked himself. If he had used his platform to advocate forced drugging of all black people, some black folks might have had something to say as well. If he's going to issue that kind of verbal abuse, he can't complain when folks take objection.
BTW, the tazed guy was doing Q&A. You're really revealing your nazi-type tendencies on that one.
Joseph the hypocrite says..By the way, Randi -- if audience members have an unassailable First Amendment right to free speech, then you are infringing on the rights of your callers when you interrupt them. If audience members speak, they do so by privilege, not by right.
Cannon..It is her show and she can call the shots as the "director" and the expert on her topics. She has the right and the responsibility to craft the program any way she wants, hence her top of the heap "progressive" commentators staus..one of the few true "progressive” voices in the entire United States. Her voice is one of the few that chalenges and demands the submission to the Constitution by our current gang of "radical" Neo Nazi’s hell bent on destroying this nation.
I hope you heard her Thursday program when she returned from her recuperation form the attack by two men smashing her with all their "bought and paid for" muscle (of course it took two men two overpower her since she stands alone, and is unprotected, and a female the so called weaker sex)) Well Cannon She really KICKED ASS on Thursday (unlike Maher that simply lost control of his lukewarm program), and she will continue to kick ass because she is a true hero at a time when there are so few because of people like you that shutdown anyone that chalenges your pitiful "conformist" viewpoint
Well Uber Schizo, you gave been deleting (censoring) anyone and anything your puny compromised brain interprets as a challenge, or as a different viewpoint right? How deep is that split in your so called brain? How many are you Cannon? How many disconnected disparate entities are you hosting in your body.mind? Time to visit an exorcist methinks.
I agree with you on this one Joseph. Those guys were out of line, but that's a fringe element. It also reflects the frustration of something so serious not getting a proper hearing. I'm one who would love to see an untarnished (less tarnished) investigation. Thanks.
Oh yeah, and I should add that I see the reason quite easily, for your frustration as well. Good luck.
Lousy logic. If a black man is in Bill Maher's audience he should normally shut up like anyone else. But if the host initiates an attack on black people or their beliefs -- as black people -- then that audience member is entitled to exercise their free speech rights and object. Why? Because a stage set is not a legal environment attracting unique legal privileges that automatically override all free speech rights. Secondly, it could legally be argued that in expressing his political views Bill Maher was, to use a commercial analogy, "offering to treat", in effect giving implied permission for people to exercise their free speech rights. If you put an object in a shop window with a price tag on it is seen as an offer to sell, a legal permission for people to come in and accept your offer and buy it. If you are a political commentator like Bill Maher who regularly accept the views of others you have no right to be upset if you put out a contentious topic that is perceived by some members of the public as representing a denial of their civil rights entitlements and an aggrieved audience member takes you up on it. If you're in the business of public debate you have no absolute right to insist that you audience members just sit there, shut up and take it. I suspect you would not object if a black man spoke out against what they perceived to be comments abusing black people on a Bill Maher show.
I note, however, that had Bill Maher not raised the issue of 911 CDs I don't believe audience members would have been entitled to raise their views during his program. But that was not the situation here. Maher initiated the topic. What if Maher had given notice before the program that he was going to speak on this issue? Would audience members be obliged to shut up? I think not. While many 911 CDers jump to unjustified conclusions about the events of 911 their underlying claims concerning their legal entitlement as citizens to a proper investigation of 911 and the collapse of the buildings are, in my view, valid.
The 911 Commissioners have admitted they were hampered in their investigations, they they were lied to by various officials and that they considered bringing perjury charges against people over their testimony. We know that whatever happened on 911 the official explanation is just one account that's been shown to be wrong on many details and lacks the moral authority that goes with a recognizably independent assessment of this national tragedy. Both the NIST and FEMA reports are lacking in credibility and their scientific evidence has not been made available for independent scientific scrutiny. Whatever else that is, it isn't science as I know it (and, yes, I have degree in science). What can people say when you tell them that James Quintiere, former Head of NIST fire investigative services, has the rejected the NIST findings and methodology. Quintiere does NOT subscribe to controlled demolition theories, but he also rejects the official findings on the collapse of the buildings. No NORAD inquiries took place into the failed security on 911, no FAA inquiries took place on either the planes, the crashes or their security failures.
It is not a discretionary exercise for the US executive to deny to the American people proper investigations of 911 -- including the building failures. It is an extreme civil rights abuse of all US citizens that the current executive has denied such a proper inquiry. Your own reporting and investigations of Huffman Aviation and the whole package of lies surrounding 911 makes it clear that Americans have never had a proper 911 inquiry. The US people have an absolute right -- absolute!! -- at any time and any place to insist on however many inquiries they want when we talk about the murder of 3000 US citizens on home soil. That's the issue, not whether they are even right about building failures.
I guess my point here is that you have the wrong focus on who are the criminals here. I don't find it offensive that someone argued with a TV windbag over 911 issues. I find it more offensive that a bunch of corporate crooks who whole stole two elections, looted the nations coffers, dismantled the Constitution, tortured people (including Padilla, a US citizen) and started illegal wars that murdered a million people should seek to tell the American people that they should shut up and sit on a corner when it comes to 911 and deny to the American people the independent 911 inquiry to which they are legally and morally entitled in every way. And that ignorant mouthpieces like Bill Maher should facilitate such a denial of the rights of US citizens. Frankly, I am surprised, disappointed and outraged that Americans are not massed in the streets with guns over this very issue. They want to know, not be told. What's so hard to understand about that?
I don't like rabid anti-Zionists who insist that 911 was an Israeli plot (it might have been, I don't know). But I don't get in a knot about it. You seem to be in a knot over CD proponents and, frankly, it looks like a personal fixation you have out of all proportion to the issue. You have said you believe CD theories don't stack up. Fine. You have linked to websites you believe make your case. Also, fine. You have denounced foul-mouthed and threatening attacks from CD supporters against you. I agree entirely and I express my personal revulsion at such methods. But I find your term "CD trannies" to be offensive and I think it detracts from the outstanding work you do on many important issues.
I agree with you on the Andy Meyers incident, but I think the Bill Maher incident was different for reasons I have spelled out. He is in the public arena speaking out on important and contentious issues. He dished it out, he should be able to take it. I have no time for him.
Thank you for your great work Joseph and I wish you well.
ABCD: Do you watch Real Time with Bill Maher? Maher's a joke jockey who seems to have wished he could be Johnny Carson (also an over-rated anti-boredom magnet). He reads widely but not well, a fact that made him blush when he asserted to Garry Kasparov that Putin's approval ratings in Russia are high, to which Kasparov demanded: "How do you know?" You infer about Maher more prestige than he deserves, and more popularity than he has. Nonetheless, he can afford to act fearless, being single and likely not mortgaged up to his very funny hair (mine's the same).
What about the rest of the audience and our rights to have the show proceed according to its design instead of its being disrupted? That was the essence of Cannon's argument, though I might argue that Eugene O'Neil's play and Bill Maher's carnival are not analogous if the matter were trivial. But you're right about Maher's asking for trouble when he dismissed 'CD' as being kooky and beyond debate.
As long as comments aren't being censored, I'll chime in about WTC #7. If in fact #7 was the New York FBI HQ, and it also contained myriads of ultra-sensitive and highly classified material, and if at that time #7 was vulnerable to unauthorized entry, given the chaos, it has to be assumed that it was ordered to be destroyed. Isn't that standard operating procedure anyway? One need only refer to the Michelin Tire Company's policy (it used to be in effect, I don't know if it still is) in the event of a fire to one of its plants where proprietary formulas and such reside: local fire departments were instructed and authorized to let the plant burn to the ground (safety for life and limb being an exception) instead of saving the building or its expendable contents. In strategic thinking, it would be incompetent and perilous for such buildings as #7 and offices to remain standing no matter where they are, under such chaotic circumstances, especially when the strategists are certain that there has been an attack. Case in point: Col. Oliver North and his shredding of sensitive documents. Finally, the strategists will never acknowledge that there is a self-destruct policy in place any more than they would divulge any top-secret policy. It's how they interpret their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, and so on. What a world, as Raymond Chandler always put it.
Well, I was initially going to respond to JC's points in reference to me, but first, after having read the previous comments, let me recognize the point he makes which is well supported by the many of the comments above.
Many of them, are extraordinarily disrespectful at best, and others horribly reprehensible at worst.
Leaving comments off mod served well to make that point, I'm afraid. Though if there's a prob w/ objectionable comments, it seems that requiring sign-in first would take care of it, and not be as draconian as full moderation. But that's just a thought.
Anyway...in response to the comments in which I was invoked...
The comparison between the Myers sitch and the Maher sitch is not apt here. Maher's show is a private event, whereas Kerry is a public figure at a public university.
In NEITHER case, however, did tasering appear to be warranted.
But in Myers case, I believe his questions were perfectly appropriate. And I disagree that he was a "danger to others" as JC has suggested.
My biggest prob w/ that sitch, however, was that a) the cops over-reacted and, perhaps even more importantly b) neither the students nor Kerry did a thing to intercede. Both should have.
As to whether I'd like to be interrupted while on stage in a PLAY (versus a public speech), I agree, I probably wouldn't. Whether or not it might make for better "theater" (as it happened to be last night on Maher's show) is a different question entirely.
That said, even if, as you suggest, I might "secretly yearn to see the miscreant dealt with harshly," that would have nothing to do with whether or not tasering would be appropriate.
It's akin to the death penalty. I'm quite sure many a victim's family would like to see the murderer of a loved one be killed in return. And they'd have every right to FEEL that way. Doesn't make killing that person the right thing to do, however.
Keep up the good work, amigo. Happy to be your punching bag any time, as I'm sure ya know! ;-)
My argument, Brad, is that there are recognized limits to free speech. You know. Crying "Fire" in a theater, and all that.
I think even if you are giving a speech, and if you accept questions afterward, the audience member who is speaking is still there by privilege, not by right. It's still YOUR event. You need not have taken any questions at all (just as you need not allow any comments on your blog). The questioner should consider himself akin to a guest in your house, and should behave accordingly.
In Andy's case -- well, first, let me say that I suspect either substance abuse or some form of emotional instability played a factor here, because the guy really was acting like someone put meth in his milk shake. He apparently had attracted the attention of the cops before he started to speak. He bulled his way in front of the line and would not let anyone else speak.
These are all issues of behavior. Whether or not you found the topics he raised "appropriate" is a separate issue. The same standards of public behavior must apply to those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree.
And I think a guy in a crowded room fighting off six cops is definitely posing a threat to others. I have long been wary of "non-lethal" weaponry, precisely because they may lower the threshold for use. But in this case, I think the taser was used quite appropriately. He had violently resisted arrest for a good, long while and had been properly warned.
If he had not committed a crime, then why was he charged with one? Granted, I must admit that the case has not been adjudicated yet. But I don't think he is going to beat the rap.
I think it was Andy who revealed "Nazi-like tendencies," as another comment put it. You know what I saw in that video? I saw a young zealot convinced of a conspiracy theory tried to commandeer a public meeting and to shout down a liberal politician. That scenario definitely has a "Munich, 1925" stench to it.
My basic point comes down the difference between a right and a privilege.
It's like when you write a letter to the editor. You have a right to write whatever you please, but you do NOT have a right to have your work published in the paper. That decision is the editor's. He may or may not choose to extend you that PRIVILEGE.
The First Amendment gives Andy the right to stage his own event. It gives trannies the right to present their views in the form of documentaries and slide shows and comic books and whatever. It gives people who hate me the right to open up their own blogs.
I would have no right to interfere with any of those activities.
And if I asked a question of Andy at his event, I'd act like a guest in someone's home.
We are well behind being due acting "out of line". This country's apathy is an embarrassment. And you're communist tattle tale attitude is a prime example of how far gone we are as a nation down the Marxist rabbit hole. It should come as no surprise if you do your homework. Do you know how many ex-communist-bloc bigwigs are working for this government? DHS is full of ex Stasi.
cannon is a poo poo head because poo is what he eats and piss too.
Joe, they really love you, lol
SluggoJD
How utterly disengeneous to paint an entire heterogeneous group with a single broad brush, call them assholes, then predict that a few will respond by not acting "civilized".
Dude, you are in serious need of a mirror.
If those guys on Maher have not earned the title "asshole," who has?
Look at the way they've treated me. Look, for example, at the vicious commentary they left all over my blog last December. I can't guest-write for Brad because the trannies go on the attack. I can't participate on DU because of the trannies.
My hatred of them is well-earned.
Heterogenous? They are ALL anti-scientific creeps as far as I am concerned. Look, either you've seen ScrewLooseChange and Screw911Mysteries, or you haven't. And if you've seen 'em, you know that there simply is no excuse for the sheer number of lies that the trannies have told. They are not merely wrong: They are deliberately liars.
My main reason for despising them is, of course, the fact they have brought into disrepute all non-official research into 9/11. We are now faced with a supremely irritating false dichotomy: Either you accept the Bush-approved version of what happened OR you believe in all of this pseudoscientific "thermite bomb" crapola.
And that's it. Those are your only two choices.
(It's as though the public were offered only the Earl Warren view and the Bill Cooper view of the JFK assassination.)
If ever you try to bring up some of the genuine mysteries surrounding 911, skeptics will lump you in with the Alex Jones types -- while the Alex Jones aficionados will lump you in with the skeptics!
Man, this situation is supremely aggravating! The trannies have done incalculable damage to this nation. They ARE the 911 cover-up.
I will never forgive them.
I understand (and partly share) your aggravation. But you are allowing your actions to be guided by your emotions and not your intellect.
If the conspiracy that resulted in the destruction of the Twin Towers was in any way aided, guided, or
simply enabled from inside our government, would "CD Theory" alter the nature or severity of the crime in
any way? I think not.
The FACT is, CD is neither provable nor disprovable. Because, like the Presidential Limosine after JFK's
assassination, the evidence was immediately carted off and destroyed. So even in the make-believe nation
that possesses the courage to pursue an actual investigation of such a possibility, CD is a Dead End.
THIS is the only valid argument against the pursuit of CD Theory. It has the advantage of guiding the
vast majority of CD proponents in a way that harnesses their good intentions by redirecting them toward a
more productive approach to the problem.
I agree that many of the CD leaders do more harm to the nation than good. However, those who belittle
the concerns of their followers in such a destrucive matter are complicit in that damage. You are no
better than they are when you take this tack.
Had the argument been presented in this way by Bill Maher, he would not have faced the kind of reaction
he got, and he actually would have accomplished something.
Will this convince everyone? Hell, no! But you "convert" who you can, and screw the rest - IGNORE them. Giving them ANY attention only worsens the situation.
And another thing.
The trannies are, by and large, a right-wing phenomenon, at least at the leadership level. Jim Marrs and Alex Jones have long believed in every reactionary conspiracy theory ever shat out by the John Birch Society. Avery seems headed down the same road. As for Hufschmid and the Spotlight leftovers -- well, we know what THEY are all about.
(I can't gauge Fetzer's politics; ever since he sided with the "We never went to the Moon" crowd, I've presumed that his rarefied mentality has transcended the limits of right and left.)
Look at the comments above and on other blogs --
"And you're communist tattle tale attitude is a prime example of how far gone we are as a nation down the Marxist rabbit hole."
Finally, note one VERY telling fact: Did the trannies ever go after Rush Limbaugh? Or Savage? Or Coulter? Or any of the Fox crowd? Or any right-winger anywhere?
No.
But Bill Maher: They HATE him with a passion.
What does that tell you?
Trannyism is a far-right phenomenon. Admittedly, it has infected some of the more naive and youthful lefties. Yet CD theories have become falsely identified with the progressive sector, even though all the major progressive sites are hostile to trannyism.
Limbaugh and Savage don't have live studio audiences, idiot.
joseph,
I had no idea your readers were so....colorful, ahem. Kind of makes me wonder where I was the day imaginations were handed out.
Your posts are often on the edge with stuff that others won't touch (why?: fear, lazy, wrong position on the issue of the week, etc - take your pick). But that is the beauty of what you write. Your posts have livened up more than one after-work watering hole discussion. FWIW, keep it up. Oh, and I happen to agree with you re the assholes who disrupted Maher's show AND the fact that because of who you call 'trannies', we really cannot reasonably discuss the conflicting aspects of 9/11. Because of the hyperbole, hysteria, and use of fiction, no one can now even question a reasonable conflict without being conflated with the crazy-ass liars.
Mr. Oh-So-Bravely Anonymous said:
"Limbaugh and Savage don't have live studio audiences, idiot."
Do the trannies mount regular protests in front of their broadcast facilities? Do they ever ever TALK about them on their tranny sites?
JC - As you know, I agree with you on most things, far more than I disagree with you. And I appreciate your right to disagree with me on the Myers thing. To that end, I'll not counter your points of view here, but will instead just hit a couple of errors and/or misconceptions in your comments...
First, I don't believe I've ever argued this was a case of First Amendment rights. I realize others have, but I haven't. I've argued it's an issue of inappropriately aggressive police behavior and a shamefully disaffected reaction from both the students and Kerry.
That's all.
"He bulled his way in front of the line and would not let anyone else speak."
Entirely untrue. At least according to the police report and other eye-witnesses. I've seen the above reported, but the evidence in the police report reveals otherwise.
If you're interested, that report is here:
http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/AndrewMeyer_Arrest_UniversityOfFloridaPoliceReport_JohnKerry_091707.pdf
Finally, while it may just be my opinion, the cops were out of line to touch him in the first place at the end of his questions. I've watched the tape (many different version of it, from different angles) and see no reason why he was touched -- at all -- by the police.
It seems to me that *they* triggered his reaction, and that *they* were overly agressive in their use of tasering.
I've seen nothing to indicate that with him on the floor, with six cops on top of him, that he was a threat to anybody but himself (at best).
At least not to the extent that tasering was needed in this situation.
Brad, thanks so much for publishing that arrest report. I think it is damning (as is the video evidence), and I am confident that the Andy will be found guilty. Looks like that lawyer Andy's Daddy bought for him has prevailed on the kid to keep quiet. Why? Because the lawyer knows how weak his case is.
Hats off to hero cop Nicole Mallo for doing her duty. My reading of that video is that the kid was thrashing about in close proximity to other audience members. Seems like a public menace to ME.
I will accept until given contrary evidence that the cops had told Andy to cool it, and that he had bulled his way to the front of the line. The reports are too numerous. We'll see what the cops say at trial.
Why weren't cops like that present at every OTHER presentation I've been at where conspiracy creeps decided that they had a right to take over? Boy, I recall this one time Robert Groden gave a talk at Culver City high. At the end, before I could ask my question, this one clown decided to commandeer the occasion. Half the audience left during his interminable tirade. Who was protecting OUR rights?
By the way, let me add another word to my "Munich, 1925" comparison. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but wasn't Andy wearing an actual brown shirt...?
Okay, that last part was meant as a joke, but the overall comparison is not. Conspiracy-spotters disrupting public events in the name of a "higher truth" -- that IS how it starts.
Here's more proof that the 911 movement is essentially right-wing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x64204
The tranny who assails Maher for not giving voice to crackpot 911 theories on his (HIS) show begins thus:
"...when Bill Maher caustically insults those who have a spiritual faith, and makes fun of all people living in the heartland of America . . . he drives people away from opening their minds to the issues he purports to care about."
How many people on TV make no secret of the fact that they have no use for religion? Only one: Bill Maher. But even one, it seems, is one too many. Maher must be censored.
The tranny then goes on to claim that the idea that the buildings fell because jets hit them is against "the laws of physics." Odd...in ALL THE WORLD, only one noted physicist (a Mormon weirdo) agrees. And -- I never get tired of repeating this -- NOT A SINGLE EXPERT IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH THE TRANNIES.
The tranny then goes on to repeat a lot o blather and lies that have already been debunked and debunked. But that is the way it is with trannies: No matter how many times you point out their lies, they keep on repeating 'em.
Sort of like Bush.
Joseph paints with a very broad brush. Sorry I can't follow all the depths that have gone on. I know Joseph is wrong about something though... There are more than a few qualified people who know there's somethng missing in a very important investigation. No screwloosechange is going to change that. I hesitate to say it, but you'd have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise.
Joe, you're wrong about that. You're right about the fringe these people walk on you may not be correct as to why. If you paint me with the same broad brush I'll spit right back in your face.
Personally, I'm comfortable that people have different opinions about the subject matter. I honor them all, I think the more light the better. I think the reason we don't have a reasonable and full on investigation is because there has been a repression of the subject not because it's been reviewed properly. I'm comfortable with everyone's opinion and stance. It's a very difficult subject and people are going to differ. All the more reason to throw what we can to bring it to resolution.
The question is simple... are there enough qualified people asking for a more reasonable resolution with serious doubts of our findings to date? The answer is a clear and obvious yes. On either side of the debate, you don't lose anything through reasonable and respectable research. In an election you may lose if they continue to recount the votes. Here, there is no loss to either side to have an extended official investigation. Is it important enough to re-open? Of course.
As to fringe behavior... well, they are fringe and, as Joe insinuate, may do us all more harm than good. I do understand the frustration that this subject matter brings, I do understand people are at a loss as to how to procede. I understand Joseph's frustration with those who flood his site with that crap. Joe, give us an idea how to move our frustration forward on this subject matter, properly, if you have any ideas. Thanks.
the last cooment by anon suggesting that you come up with a "creative" idea about how to proceed towards a reasonable alternative to the constant bickering about 911 would be to turn the site or at least "every Monday" a forum where people of all stripes and of all opinions can explain their positions to the audience at large.
But knowing Cannon as I do it will nnot happen since he gets his rocks off by hating those that disagree with him.
He is too attached to his "hate" mecanism so he fits in more intimately with the haters that are destroying this once fair land.
How sad..he had such promise.
Well, as long as we're in the speculation game at this point, I'll counter my friend JC once again.
Myer will NOT be found guilty of at least the first part of what the charges the police report says he was originally being detained for "inciting a riot and disrupting a school function."
And my other prediction: He will sue, successfully, for the tasering and he will either win, or the school will settle with him.
So, we'll see whose eventually right :-)
"Inciting a riot" as he was originally charged.
We'll see, Brad. But now, for the broader picture, I would like to direct your attention to the anonymous crank you thinks he "knows" me. The comment above yours.
"a reasonable alternative to the constant bickering about 911 would be to turn the site or at least "every Monday" a forum where people of all stripes and of all opinions can explain their positions to the audience at large."
Reasonable? I should turn over MY site -- for which I am paid nothing -- over to people who irritate the hell out of me? To people whom I, consider downright dangerous?
Don't you see the problem here, Brad?
Zealots who become convinced of conspiracy theories think that they have the right to bully others into giving them a forum.
Well, they don't have that right. They just don't.
They have a right to create their OWN forums. To start their own blogs, to sell tickets to their own lectures, to create their own documentaries, even to create their own newspapers, as Willis Carto did. THAT, my friend, is the blessed First Amendment in action. (Insert Voltaire quote here.)
But that's not good enough for the new breed of zealot. They feel that the beatific vision gives them the right to take over SOMEONE ELSE'S forum. "You may no longer speak words I find disagreeable," they shout. "You must move over and let ME speak."
Whether it's Andy thinking he can commandeer John Kerry's gig, or the trannies thinking they can commandeer Bill Maher's gig, or the trannies who (for God-knows-what reason) come here and think they have a right to commandeer my gig -- as though I OWED something to the fuckers! -- these supremely arrogant conspiracy creeps all convey the same message: They believe that people who disagree with them simply don't have a right to to speak.
I'm sorry, but we have to teach this new generation (at taser point, if necessary) how to behave when they are in an audience. If you don't like the show, leave the theater. That is your right. And your rights end there. You do NOT have the right take over the production. You DO have the right to create your own production in the theater next door.
I hate to keep harping on it, but this kind of barbarism really did happen a lot in the early days of the Nazi party. Yes, there's a difference between the fanatics who attacked Maher and brownshirted bullyboys who broke chairs at socialist meetings in the 1920s. But the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind.
Soon, I predict, you'll see the gap narrow. As it does, you'll see that I was right to warn of the danger.
The tranny then goes on to claim that the idea that the buildings fell because jets hit them is against "the laws of physics." Odd...in ALL THE WORLD, only one noted physicist (a Mormon weirdo) agrees.
Respectfully, this is not true. NIST itself says that the plane impacts played no significant role in the collapse of the buildings, only the fire which was able to weaken the steel because the planes removed sufficient insulation. This is a minor point and I guess you were disputing the bombs-in-the-buildings corollary. But the statement as it stands is reasonable.
I am not convinced about the BITBs theory but I am concerned that justice not just be done but be seen to be done. It IS an unusual event for planes to crash into skyscrapers and for them to collapse. We know most of the perpetrators (16) got their visas through Jeddah, a known CIA entry point for Islamists coming to the US for training at US military sites. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of these people over a decade of US support for Pakistan and the Taliban and in Chechnya. These were young, unattached males from the M.E. According to normal visa assessment rules they would have been denied entry. It is also known that a number of Islamists, and specifically al Qaeda operatives, had been working with the CIA and FBI for a decade. Mohammed Ali is a good example. There is also drug trafficking at Huffman, the "dancing" Israelis, the Israeli art students and French Intelligence connections to al Qaeda. So it is far from an incredible hypothesis that elements within US Intelligence either were participants in 911 or allowed it to happen.
I put it to you that in the circumstances I have just described the public is entitled to be satisfied at every level that US complicity did not occur. This means that every aspect of the official 911 inquiries should meet exemplary standards in investigation and reporting. Clearly that has not occurred and I put it to you that there are at least procedural deficiencies in both the NIST and FEMA investigations that limit the credibility we can give to their reports. These include: disputes about their computer modelling; secrecy aspects in regard to the handling of evidence and their refusal to make that evidence available to independent scientists; a failure to provide an industry standard video simulation of the their modeling; and their refusal to interview witnesses who reported explosive sounds on 911. These all represent significant departures both from established insurance and civil engineering practices in the assessment of fire damage. James Quintiere, former Head of NIST fire investigative services, has expressed some of these concerns.
If I follow your reasoning correctly you argue that (1) the CD theories have been adequately debunked, (2) the general thrust of the FEMA and NIST findings are correct, and (3) therefore these findings should be accepted by the public.
Given the concerns I have expressed about the manner in which the terrorists arrived in the US, the moral necessity for exemplary standards of investigation and the doubts I have listed about the NIST and FEMA inquiries, I am not convinced that people are under any obligation to accept conclusion (3). (That does not mean that CD theories are true).
As the most recognizable feature of the events of 911 the collapse of the buildings has a strong hold on people's imaginations. They may be in error if they conclude that bombs were in the building or that thermite was involved, but they would not be wrong, in my view, in believing that they have not received the kind of investigation they are entitled to. After all, if the government had called upon the civil engineering and science faculties of the major universities to form a statutory independent body to investigate these collapses, provided them with full legal authority to call witnesses and experts and gave them unfettered access to all evidence then we would not be where we are today. The CD theories you dismiss would gain no traction with the general public if they knew that the best of Cal Tech, Harvard and MIT had concluded that the planes and fire alone had brought down these buildings.
So I guess what I am saying is, do you agree that the NIST and FEMA investigations have met the necessary professional and moral standards of accountability for an incident of this magnitude and public importance?
If you say yes then I would have to disagree with you. If you say no then I see no reason why you cannot support a public effort to submit all the evidence to independent scientific review. As I understand it that is all that a number of CD proponents and general members of the public are asking for anyway.
You are right, Joseph, to say that you have no obligation to put forward other people's views on 911 CD theories at your website in order to advance public discussion.
"So I guess what I am saying is, do you agree that the NIST and FEMA investigations have met the necessary professional and moral standards of accountability for an incident of this magnitude and public importance?"
I am saying that the trannies have lied their asses off.
I am also saying that the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that the buildings were not brought down by explosives. It's not as though NIST brought howls of outrage from the scientific community.
Of the one group who really ought to know -- guys who do controlled demolitions for a living -- not one has come forward in support of such a theory. Nowhere in the world. Not even in countries (there are now many) which do not like us.
"If you say yes then I would have to disagree with you. If you say no then I see no reason why you cannot support a public effort to submit all the evidence to independent scientific review. As I understand it that is all that a number of CD proponents and general members of the public are asking for anyway."
Look, before the Maher debacle, I would have agreed. You can even find examples where I said it. Investigation? Sure, why not?
But after seeing what has happened to Maher -- well, let's face it: Trannyism is now a religion. Spending taxpayer dollars to investigate the CD theory is like spending taxpayer dollars to investigate the Resurrection.
Be ruthlessly honest. If an investigation did not tell the CDers what they wanted to hear, would they accept its results? Or would they fasten on ANY rationale in order to proclaim a cover-up?
We know the answer. Not long ago, I came across a quote in which Dylan Avery proclaimed that the NYC fire chiefs were in on it, or bought off. If Dylan can say THAT about THEM -- well, cah-MON, you know what he will say about any scientist who tells Dylan "You're wrong."
You cannot justify spending tax dollars trying to convince people who have sunk into a morass of perfect paranoia. Such people are unreachable. Trannies are the Borg.
All right, how's this for a compromise: Let's fund an investigation when a certain percentage of the world's experts in controlled demolition -- say, one-third -- agree that the CD theory may hold water.
Either that, or let's fund the investigation by taxing the trannies and ONLY the trannies, leaving the wallets of normal people unmolested.
A couple of other points:
You should know damned well by now that my attacks on the trannies have NOTHING to do with legitimate questions about how the terrorists arrived in this country, and so forth.
I have said AD NAUSEUM that the main reason I despise the CD theorists is that their nonsense has effectively covered up the real mysteries.
I've also said that my tolerance for conspiracy theory ends at the point where science begins. I theorize myself -- a lot -- in areas that are properly the province of journalists, policemen, politicians, historians, intelligence officers and so forth. But when we get into questions best answered by scientists, I step aside and defer to scientific opinion.
In other words, I encourage everyone to weigh the merits of Sylvia Odio's story about meeting Oswald before the assassination. That is not a scientific controversy. Nothing about it is replicable or testable in a laboratory.
But claims about the melting point of steel ARE within the province of science. And it pisses me off that people STILL don't understand that steel loses its structural integrity at a temperature much lower than the melting point.
If you really cared about the things that Hopsicker and others have reported, you would be as furious as I am about the trannies. The tranny movement is the force which has discredited and "outshouted" those asking what I consider the REAL questions.
The average bozo-on-the-bus does not know who Rudi Dekkers is, but he sure as hell knows a bunch of crap about the fucking bombs in the buildings.
The trannies ARE the cover-up.
Look, try not to confuse the 'Maher' incident with reputable 3rd party research and discussion about the calamities that befell 9/11, particularly the physical aspects thereof.
There are enough questions on that account alone to re-open an investigation. It's as easy as that. Furthermore, any research would re-open questions that you are concerned with as well. We're all basically in the same camp, we want more research, we want an investigation. And will your so-called trannies shut up with a new investigation? I think so, if it's not skewed.
So what's the big deal. Admit an open and official investigation will do more for this issue in all perspectives than any individual or blogger research can do. We need subpeona power and so on. It's easy.
We're all in the same game, we want the same thing, we want results we can trust. No I don't buy your argument that any one faction is 'preventing' the truth from coming out in that sense, unless they have a few billion to protect and an interest in not having it come out.
Atchd said "As long as comments aren't being censored, I'll chime in about WTC #7. If in fact #7 was the New York FBI HQ, and it also contained myriads of ultra-sensitive and highly classified material, and if at that time #7 was vulnerable to unauthorized entry, given the chaos, it has to be assumed that it was ordered to be destroyed. Isn't that standard operating procedure anyway"?
OK, styrofoam for brains..if that building was "destroyed" for all your fanciful reasons.who rigged it with explosives ahead of time? It takes serious engineering and lots of man hours to surgically place explosives throughout the skeleton of the building to demolish it with precision like they all three wentt downthat day. In other words, all three buildings behaved as though they had been engineered with demolition precision weeks before.. as the testimony of many of the occupants attests, after the incident, there were evacuation drills, elevator stoppage issues, and many other strange "security" mishaps weeks before the event.
With Marvin Bush sitting on the board of the security company Stratsec, you would think that at least a tiny particle of the commission findings would have questioned the security company that was respnsible for the entire World Trade Center complex..but no.
The following is a December 2003 electronic communication from a former employee of Stratesec, Inc.
"Stratesec, formerly named Securacom, now defunct, was a security company that touted contracts with major clients including the World Trade Center, Dulles Airport and United Airlines.
Stratsec merged with a company named SSI. SSI was full of Iranians and middle East looking people. Rumor has it they merged with SSI because they were doing tons of DOD work. It turns out that there were back door pay offs and kick backs on all of the contracts that SSI had and that there [sic] books were cooked prior to the merge. Stratesec split from them and the majority of the SSI Middle East workers went to work for a company that does Airport security work named ISR Integrated Security
http://www.isrsolutions.com/page.jsp?page=Services
Turns out that the “Carlyle Group” is a major investor and the the Bush family owns a chunk of the Carlyle Group.
Wirt Walker ran Stratesec and was a shady character himself. I never saw him or spoke to him. Always kind of in the background. He also owned Avenger or aviator airlines [Commander Aircraft] which was a small airplane company. The other major owner was Kuwam Kuwait American airlines.
all this by Margi Burns
more here..
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
Hey Anonymous : 9:58 AM: my "styrofoam for brains" has always protected me from the kinds of head injuries and cerebral atrophy you haven't recovered from.
Kucinich is about to bust Pelosi's ass
Kucinich pushes Bush impeachment
By JULIA REYNOLDS
Herald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 10/22/2007 01:38:44 AM PDT
"I'm going to talk to members of Congress this week and tell them taking impeachment off the table is a big mistake," he said.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, weary from a dozen campaign stops in a week, sat in a small room at the Monterey fairgrounds on Sunday, but he had a look in his eyes that said he knew he wouldn't sit for long.
Still, his expression seemed to lighten as he recalled his comedic success last week as a guest on The Colbert Report, the farcical news show on "Comedy Central."
"The secret of it," he said, pausing for effect, "Don't try to be funny."
Only then did he let out a laugh.
The presidential hopeful was energized by a straw poll taken Sunday in San Mateo County, where he came in second after John Edwards as the favored Democratic candidate.
"That shows that I am electable," he said. "That was very powerful, a sign of rising support because of the stand I take for peace — including standing up against war with Iran."
He seized the moment to come out with perhaps his strongest stance to date toward impeaching President George W. Bush.
"I'm going to talk to members of Congress this week and tell them taking impeachment off the table is a big mistake," he said.
Kucinich was moved to take action, he said, in part because of Bush's recent suggestion to reporters that a world war with Iran might be imminent, leading Kucinich to wonder "whether he's playing with Armageddon or he's not well."
"The world can't countenance the president of the United States raising the specter of World War III," he said. "A president must be temperate with his
Advertisement
Click Here!
words."
I've also said that my tolerance for conspiracy theory ends at the point where science begins.
Good point. Going further than that would involve use of logic and critical thinking, neither of which are your strong suit.
JC said:
"Don't you see the problem here, Brad?...Zealots who become convinced of conspiracy theories think that they have the right to bully others into giving them a forum....Well, they don't have that right. They just don't."
Never argued that they did.
"I'm sorry, but we have to teach this new generation (at taser point, if necessary) how to behave when they are in an audience."
I don't think that even you believe that. But I recognize that you're trying to make a point here.
Just happens to be one that runs counter to a different point that *I* was trying to make (the tasering of Myer was uncalled for and unnecessary and overly-aggressive).
"Soon, I predict, you'll see the gap narrow. As it does, you'll see that I was right to warn of the danger."
I never argued that you weren't right to warn of the danger.
AitchD said...
Hey Anonymous : 9:58 AM: my "styrofoam for brains" has always protected me from the kinds of head injuries and cerebral atrophy you haven't recovered from.
but a roarng silence about the facts stated above when building #7 came tumbling straight down. That styrofoam is still inside there Aitchd, has it made you mute?
Whadya thimk?
I have read various commentators' critiques of Loose Change and other controlled demolition materials, and while I find their objections unpersuasive, what is more apparent is that their attitudes and debating techniques toward their opposite side are often about the same as those that JC complains about from the other direction. Perhaps that is the nature of any heated disagreement, given the human condition.
One can argue for a true position and make any number of errors of fact, just as one can argue for a false position using a variety of accurate facts (see: lawyers or other sophists). Errors may or may not be critical to the argument in chief, just as they may instead be essentially ancillary matters which do not bear much on the argument in chief.
Accurate facts can be in short supply when amateur enthusiasts combine with underfunded, officially opposed, and artificially limited 'official' investigations that start from the official story and work backwards to show that it was 'possible,' not quite what is sufficient to reach the truth.
Frankly, there is no explanation at all in the official NIST report of what happened after so-called 'global collapse' was initiated, to explain how those collapses were as symmetrical as they were or so quick. Any weakening of the steel from heat would have been restricted to asymmetrical areas, with most of the steel structure through which the rest collapsed intact, and subject to no such heating. However, it seems there was little or no resistance to the top falling through the bottoms of the buildings, quibbles about the exact length of the quite short time apart.
Then again, what was the official explanation for molten steel at all, let alone its continuance for weeks at the site? From a q&a session with the NIST director, the 'explanation' seems to be simply denial that it existed, when multiple highly placed senior officials on the scene described just that.
Besides the molten steel, there were the sublimated pieces of steel that appeared like swiss cheese, full of holes where the steel evaporated, slags of coagulated steel and concrete dubbed 'meteorites,' huge I-beams smoothly bent in extreme arcs without signs of buckling, and the infamous angle cut steel beams.
At a minimum, those who deride the notion of controlled demolition must account for these features of the disaster in some alternative fashion, or else their positions are logically untenable. Have they done that? Not in the slightest, IMO, based on the sources to which JC links. Attack as they may wish the (perhaps) multiple errors of their counterparts, or demonize them ad hominem ad nauseum, the anti-cd-ers' case is fatally flawed if they cannot address and credibly explain these features of those events.
There in a nutshell is the cd case, sans the Tourette's syndrome outbursts and government agent baiting language. It isn't hard to state, it isn't abusive, and it deserves a credible and official rebuttal, if one can be given. Absent such a rebuttal, one should be forgiven for thinking that since it hasn't been given, it cannot be done.
Maher already lost his previous show over an imbroglio over some allegedly unpatriotic language. Seems he learned his lesson.
sofla
anonymous 2:35, I already posted what I think about #7 as an instance of Occam's razor; but I didn't call its destruction a CD because I wanted to keep its non-nefarious but fatalistic demolition separate from the issues of the towers' collapsing. I don't know when #7 first became a top-most security installation, but at that time is when it would have been retrofitted to self-destruct. With regard to your allegations about apparent and actual conflicts of interest, why don't you also kvetch about the generals of the Army coincidentally being in the military for a long time? Do correct me if my example here of your putative logic does your reasoning a disservice:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Joseph, I am not impressed by the argument that few experts have come forward to object to the official findings. Only one radar controller (Robin Horden) came forward to argue that jet fighters regularly intercepted wayward commercial aircraft yet this appears to be standard procedure. None of the officials who handled the 911 flight recorders came forward to denounce official denials of their existence. Has the US media said anything useful about Huffman or the half ton of cocaine in Mexico?
All right, how's this for a compromise: Let's fund an investigation when a certain percentage of the world's experts in controlled demolition -- say, one-third -- agree that the CD theory may hold water.
The world's scientists and demolition experts have never spoken out on 9/11 because 90% of them rely on what they see on the TV like the rest of us. The remaining 10% might have looked over the NIST report but are not in a position to assess it because they don't have access to the primary evidence.
James Quintierre is the guy who ran NISTs fire investigation division. If ever a guy should know what he's talking about, it's him:
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable" explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
I agree some people will never be convinced. But I see no reason why the general public should have to rely on either Dylan Avery or Popular Mechanics on this issue or that they should forgoe their rights for public accountability.
Joseph, you believe that calls for a review of NIST findings will detract from other efforts at 911 accountability. You may be right but I'm not convinced. Almost any claim to reopen 911 investigations will be driven, rightly or wrongly, by public interest in collapsing buildings. Fact of life. Thanks for your views.
atchd..
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.
Only in potential are we Socrates.
As to mortality..there are those of us that believe profoundly in immortality throgh the resurrection of Jesus..try Him sometime.
Oh, are you also suggesting that all buildings that house “Top Security" files and computers and employees are wired to distintagrate in the event of an emergency?
I sure do not want to work in one of those buildings, do you?
Anonymous : 6:28 AM:
Maybe not the buildings at Los Alamos where you'll be shot on sight if you cross the line, and certainly not in an "emergency" short of hostile invasion. You know that a civillian aircraft was ordered to be shot out of the sky, don't you? But why do you ask me such questions when you don't care what I think? One for you: what sort of spell-checker would Jesus use?
Post a Comment