Sunday, July 30, 2006
Her name was Pamela Waechter. She was 58 when she was shot dead by a lone gunman who had forced his way into the Jewish Federation in Seattle on Friday. Five other women were wounded, including one who had saved her pregnancy by guarding her womb with her arm, which took the bullet.
It doesn't matter what the reasons for this hate crime were. He's a killer now. The genocide of Arabs being committed by Israel has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. It is unjust war. Just as this hate crime was unjust.
Take a good look at Pamela. She was a sacred, sovereign human being. Ask yourself to ignore peripheral information, such as politics, and just look at her. The pain of losing yet another human being due to blind hate and confusion is enough. Just take a moment and mourn this one human being.
A huge number of people (okay, 25) responded to my little "poll" about 9/11. The question was, "Where do you stand on 9/11?" Respondents were invited to check all that apply. I was only able to provide 10 possible answers due to Vizu's limitations; I would have preferred 20 or 25 possible answers, but I really liked Vizu's format. (If you didn't take the poll while it was on my blog, you can still take it here.)
The results include plenty of both "liberal" and "conservative" and "independent" voters; I know this because I have been loosely tracking their originating sites. Okay, so it's not entirely scientific. But you'll see some pretty clear-cut conclusions if you take a close look and take it apart.
First and foremost, I was glad to find out that only 16% of respondents said that the poll itself was "perfectly framed to register all possible opinion ranges." This demonstrates a natural awareness that the 9/11 issue cannot easily be broken down into the discrete categories I laid out. At first, that may sound like a cruel trick to play on people, but that wasn't the intention, as you will see.
My second favorite conclusion is that only 4% (one person) believed that all questions about 9/11 were settled long ago. That's encouraging. So, while not everyone necessarily agrees with me when I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, at least there is the generally held admission that we don't know all the answers.
Interestingly enough, the very same person who said that all 9/11 questions were settled long ago, did not say that he or she knew everything there was to know about 9/11. I know this because literally nobody said that they knew everything there is to know about 9/11, as I will discuss later. That proves conclusively that that one person is a self-contradicting moron. How can you say that all questions about 9/11 have been answered, when you fully admit that not even you know all the answers? How can you possibly verify that? How can you be such a parrot, a sheep, a lemming? Your convictions are absurd on their face, and they defy all logic. You just proved to us all beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't even believe your own self-deluded doublethink. People are welcome to disagree, but don't just talk for the sake of it, or you're liable to get schooled by a tinfoil hatter. Get the hell off the Internet before you stub your thumb on the "any" key. Just go. Grab your pills, get the bottle of Jack out from behind the couch, flip on the Fox News, and just be as happy as a pig in shit for all eternity, okay? Whatever blows your skirt up, you know?
Don't worry, I detected no further stupidity than in that one respondent. Amazing how a silly little poll can really work this blogger into a self-righteous tizzy. Deep breaths. Deep. Breaths. Ten, nine, still mad, eight, seven, not so bad, six, five, four, feeling calmer, three, calmer, two, one. Okay, I'm cool now. No worries. Moving on.
It seems almost everybody agreed that some-to-all of the facts about 9/11 were withheld by those who are truly in-the-know, but not necessarily because of a dastardly plan to deceive the public. 32% believed the cover-up was motivated, at least in part, by security concerns. 32% believed that incompetence had something to do with the reasons behind any possible cover-up.
At this point I need to admit that some of these questions were muddled with qualifiers, so that some of the answers had to be judgment calls. I intentionally chose the possible responses based on what I perceived to be the Zeitgeist, rather than based on a more rational method. However, it is highly worth noting that 20% of respondents said they believe that some details were withheld to protect guilty parties, and a whopping 40% of respondents believe that most of the guilty parties are Americans, hands down.
At this point, you're probably thinking that that 40% number seems pretty high. Your skepticism is worthy of acknowledgment, for two reasons. One, only 25 people responded, which brings a large margin of error; and two, I could have easily targeted this poll to people whose opinions I already know. To the first charge, you're right. Small sample. Nothing I can do about it. However, that 40% number happens to be about on par with the national polls Zogby has been doing. To the second charge, I can honestly say I have been spending a lot of time baiting "conservatives" and avowed neocons alike into visiting my blog. This was to counterbalance the inevitable alliances of common interest and values that one naturally accumulates in the blogosphere over time. What I saw was a lot of "conservative" bloggers visiting my site (verified via Site Meter) during the same time points at which the poll numbers changed. Enough of them came over here to satisfy my desire for a modicum of balance.
Only 8% (2 people) believe that no commercial airliners struck any buildings. This may sound crazy at first, even to a 9/11 researcher, but their answers were probably based on the ongoing dogged analysis of possible television footage doctoring that some allege is responsible for some kind of near-universal delusion. Their contention may or may not include some reference to the idea that people can actually be brainwashed into believing that their own eyes deceive them, and that television is a more reliable means of interacting with one's exterior existence. There is real evidence for this phenomenon, but I myself am not at all ready to delve into the frustrating world of TV fakery detection and the wild and woolly world of the Jungian collective unconscious and memes and whatnot. I just don't have that kind of time right now. Therefore, I was not one of the two people who checked off that box. All I'm saying is listen.
Finally, there were the three self-assessment questions, which can be summed up into one question: How much do you think you know about 9/11? As I said before, nobody was arrogant enough to claim that they know everything there is to know about the subject. That's a relief. Nobody fell for that one. I don't need to explain, then, just how complex this topic is. To my amazement, only 40% of respondents felt that they know more about 9/11 than the average joe. I really respect that kind of honesty. That figure makes sense, too, since it's not so far off from 50%, which, by definition, is average. So if you checked off that box, you probably really do know more about 9/11 than the average joe.
Also to my amazement, 20% of respondents admitted that they know little about 9/11. That's a huge thing to admit, even to oneself. It's extremely important that we exercise that kind of humility at all times; it's one of the basic preconditions for learning and discovery. I myself could learn a lot from this category of humble poll respondents.
So to recap:
"All of the official story is accurate. All questions about 9/11 were settled a long time ago." 4%
"All of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld for security reasons." 32%
"Most of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld to spare the INCOMPETENT." 32%
"Most of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld to spare the GUILTY." 20%
"Very little of the official story is accurate, and most of the guilty parties are Americans." 40%
"None of the official story is accurate. Commercial airliners did not strike any buildings." 8%
"I feel I know everything there is to know about 9/11." 0%
"I feel I know more about 9/11 than the average joe." 40%
"I feel I know little about 9/11." 20%
"This poll is perfectly framed to register all possible opinion ranges." 16%
So. There you go. I hope you learned something. I sure learned some things. I like experiments. Now how about something a little more lighthearted? Enjoy the new poll.
But wait. Soon after Fox News rightfully exposed Barrett as a Def Leppard denialist and astutely advised their viewers to shoot Barrett, the University of Wisconsin Provost Patrick Farrell released a statement to the effect of: "I like Kevin Barrett. Kevin Barrett is my best friend. I like his hair, and he is an excellent speller."**
It was starting to look better for Barrett. And that's no good for America. So State Representative Steve Nass courageously dashed to the rescue, by rounding up 60 other State Representatives to sign off on a formal demand that said, "Kevin Barrett is a poopy butt. Fire him and give him a 'nuggie' or a 'snakebite' or at least a round of 'Ten Pops'. And this has nothing to do with a perfect excuse to cut state funding for higher education, which has never in the past been our goal. Oh, and more pop machines for the hallways. Me for Class President!"**
Now, you would think this would be enough to wake people up to the reality of Kevin Barrett and his smelly patchouli. But no. He still has a job, there have been no schoolyard pranks of any kind, poor people are still getting smarter, and the pop machines are still being unfairly terrorized by a box full of NutriGrain bars. On the bright side, Mark Green might become class president.***
In the ancient words of Eminem, "this motherfucker won't die." "Go to sleep, bitch! Die motherfucker die! Unh! Time's up, bitch! Close your eyes and go to sleep bitch!"*
It ain't happening. Barrett is alive and well, and he is still loved by all the comic book bad guys, including Lex Luthor and Gargamel. Plus a handful of millions of white bread American terrorists, according to a recent Zogby poll. This can only mean one thing: Barrett won't die because he is dead. He's a zombie, man! Or at least a vampire and a pagan both rolled up into one. And we all know what pagans do.
Kevin Barrett eats babies.
Oh, plus he's some kind of 9/11 "denialist" or something.
* Actual quotes.
** Not actual quotes. I know, it's hard to tell the difference.
*** Incidentally, U.S. Representative from Green Bay of the Not-Green Party Mark Green is running for governor on a platform that favors a triple-threat playground prank of nuggies, snakebites, and Ten Pops. He also favors having more things that have "Green" in their names or that incorporate the color green, such as dirty money funneled to him by Tom DeLay.****
**** That last part is not a joke.
Only this past week did I learn that I am a 9/11 denialist. I have a Wisconsin "conservative" blogger to thank for this revelation. Up until this discovery, I had considered myself more of a, oh, I don't know, 9/11 researcher, which I define as a terrorist who goes digging around for facts and things. But now I know I'm not. I'm actually a denialist. That's someone who refuses to acknowledge - oops, I mean admits the dearth of - a given event.
Since I am a denialist, what I really enjoy doing is pretending - oops, I mean admitting - that 9/11 never happened. Burning? Screaming? Death? Snap out of it, my boy! Blithering and blathering about this mystical "9/11" business is not earning you any vacation days from the asylum.
Here is what happened on 9/11: nothing. It was a normal day at the office, m'kay? Get that through your head. Oh, don't cry. Here, I know what will make you feel better: a trip to the World Trade Center! We'll go up in the tower, in those big elevators of theirs, the ones that go really fast. Your tummy will feel funny, but not a bad funny. I think that will cheer you up. And then, when we get to the top, we'll go to the observatory and look out upon the pristine expanses of New York City where nothing ever happened, m'kay? Well, nothing but wonderful concerts on the World Trade Center Plaza. Maybe there will be a jazz band there; we can swing dance!
The weather is beautiful, the government is a peach, the oligopolies put their pants on one leg at a time just like you, there is no such thing as white evil, and there was no 9/11. I know this because I am a 9/11 denialist, and because reverse logic tells me so.
Friday, July 28, 2006
I think people are funny. I could talk with for hours and hours and hours, just blowing minds, over and over again, but what the hell is the point when the minds are in such short supply? I'd rather have my own mind blown. So blow me.
I'm just not very impressed anymore. Not impressed with "arguments", not impressed with "debate", not impressed with "evidence" and "logic" and "thought". Things like that don't get me anymore. All this talk of Israel bombing the soul out of Lebanon, and Condoleeza Rice traipsing around Italy with her face in her wearied hands, and Richard Perle explaining to Bush how the Mistress of Death Herself is just not cockadoodledooed in the head enough to run the State Department anymore. All these musings over just how dead we are all going to be as a result of Bush's Happy Fun Time Armageddon Playset (New from Lockheed Martin! 2 to 4 Players. Ages 8 to Adult.) Not impressed. You know? What's the point? I'd rather be a dick.
Sage Francis said: Makeshift Patriot, the flag shop is out of stock; I hang myself at half mast... No, I'm not at that point. Never will be. But hang it all anyway, yes-no? Yes yes, don't get me wrong, I like reading the news and analysis from all my blogger buddies. I find what they do to be enthralling, I really do. I read about the forms death takes as often as I can. If I can be serious for just a millisecond, I honestly value being informed. But it's kind of all one thing, you know? It all kind of swirls together, like so much lavatory flotsam and jetsam towards the Great Below.
I'm really digging myself a hole here. Let me be absolutely clear: I love what my buddies are doing. I love the blogging thing, and learning, and getting the facts, and also scoping out the so-called "opposition". But there are some folks out there - nay, most folks out there - who really just don't think at all.
I know you don't believe me when I say some folks really don't think at all. You think I mean it in an exasperated way, a way that says, "Well of course they think, but they just don't seem to be able to see a few things my way." No. I mean literally. They don't think. Here, let me break it down for you.
When these non-thinking people go to "think", what they do is place their heads in the general area of a certain massive fart cloud which I will here dub the "dumbfuckanimbus cloud". Gingerly, these non-thinkers sort of push their heads through the misting sulfur essence of the dumbfuckanimbus cloud. A little of the gas enters the ear - the right ear or the left ear, doesn't matter which, because I'm not talking about liberals vs. conservatives. When enough airborne putrescence has entered their ears and lightly pressurized the inside of their skull, they quick pull an airtight hood over their heads, so that the deathalicious odor will be contained. They have to tie the hood off at the neck, which cuts off circulation, but this poses no medical threat, since their craniums are actually just primitive wooden carvings splattered with some somewhat life-like house paint and crowned with a fist full of cornsilk. What I am saying is that there are no nerve endings in or on their "heads".
Okay, I suppose I've lost you here again. You still don't believe me. Just try to keep up, okay? Because what I am telling you is absolutely true in a very literal way. I know because I've met hundreds of these "people". They exist, and they're everywhere! Moving on now: the hood, now securely smothering their "head", also obscures their vision (their eyes are those trick eyeballs you can buy at Spencer's Gifts), and so they are even more blind than before. I know that sounds silly, to say that someone can be even more blind than blind, but some things are harder to explain than others. Forgive me.
So. You've got these feverish herds of non-thinkers wandering around, waiting for a good time to take the bag off, and when they do find an excuse, the stench just wafts gently right back out, the same way it came in: through the ear. This explains why they don't know how to listen. They actually use their ears to "talk". Very strange. (What do their mouths look like? A film canister with a chunk of raw hamburger meat at the bottom, approximating a tongue. Hey, that's what it looks like. Don't kill the messenger.) Then when they're done wafting, they clear their throats (garden hose?) and claim to be thinking.
Anyway, it's that stench, and that freakish anatomy of theirs, and their crazy-making professions of individual thought, that have made me realize that you just can't convince a non-thinker of anything. You'll go crazy trying. So I have decided to become a dick. If you want to debate, argue, talk, converse - you know, normal-person activities - you have to sort of waft your point.
And I don't have that kind of patience. Maybe I'll be normal one day, again, for the first time. Until then: I'm a dick.
Instead, they exhibit nothing but an undying love for Great Leader, I mean Mein Furor, I mean The Chairman, I mean, I mean. Whatever you want to call him. No matter what that neocon shill Bush does, they follow! And when Richard Perle opens his mouth, these "conservatives" drool in admiration!
I am a conservative. You are not. I am sticking my tongue out at you, because I win, and you lose, this debate. Not because I can prove it, which I can but won't because I make it a point not to throw my pearls before swine, but because I know I'm right. So I find it absolutely hilarious when you people label 9/11 researchers as "liberal moonbats". I mean, can you please just go with a more time-honored clichee, like "tinfoil hatter", or something? That would be nice, and more accurate (read: less infinitely ignorant). What does free thought have to do, directly, with liberalism? Say it with me, "conservatives": Not much! Right? I mean, come on, you do hate "liberals" (whatever the hell those are) so much that you're willing to blame them for everything, including the yammerings of tinfoil hatters like me, right? Those damn liberals and their conspiracy theories. Fools! Swine! Oink!
Cat Number Two jumpin' out da bag: Most liberals don't think 9/11 was in inside job! Do you understand the words that are comin' outta my mouth (thank you Chris Tucker)? Most liberals are, well, stuck on "the liberal agenda". I thought you knew that! Why the hell should they stray from their Robin Hood delusions of stealing from the rich and giving to themselves? Why should they throw away their whole plan just so they could say discrediting things like Bush knocked down the towers and Cheney has a tail and Silverstein is Jewish and Bin Laden, who is a dirty Jew, is trying to undermine the institution of marriage by trysting with Elvis, who is a dirty Jew steppin' on my blue suede shoes and whatnot? Well some of that stuff is factually accurate, but most of it is complete lucacy and/or anti-Semitism. Point is, that stuff's for me to say, not liberals! I'm the psycho here! I'm the supposed Jew-hater here! (Not that the real bad guys are even Jewish, but it doesn't matter, because no matter what a dissenter says - even if he's saying, "Uh, yo, a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant just kicked me in the nuts" - he's only complaining because he hates the Jooz, and by Allah Christ, you people are gonna point it out and, if necessary, make stuff up and take things out of context, which, I am 100% sure, you all will do when you are done reading this. It's just a cut-and-paste endeavor. Think you can handle that? Or haven't you yet found the on-switch to that Mac laptop your trust fund bought you?) So you leave them liberals alone, you meany wannabe-conservatives!
And the third cat purred: Dr. Kevin Barrett (yeah, he's a doctor, and don't you forget it, you filthy conservative hippies) is not only smart, not just brave, not just righteous, but he's a funny mofo too! He's got more personality in his converted ragtop hat than you've got in your whole wardrobe full of Abercrombie & Fitch. Or Old Navy, or whatever the hell you people wear. I don't care what you wear. Point is, all of your personality is tied up in your clothing. Hey, don't feel so bad. Some people just suck, that's all. And you're one of those people. That's okay, don't worry about it. I heard the Wizard is supposed to stop by Wisconsin on his way to Oz. Maybe he'll give you a clue. Best of luck with that.
And now, for those of you who are capable of abstract thought (i.e., the ones who laughed or at least smirked somewhere in there), thank you for reading this. All I'm saying is, hey, teacher, don't leave them kids alone, what we need is education. And not the kind of education where you just regurgitate the edicts of the winning factions of all wars that ever happened in history. Can learning please be more than just a survey of opinions from every annoying dictator and genocidal maniac who ever got flag-waved into power? Please. I'm not begging you, I'm telling you. Well, yes, I'm begging you. "You" being "whoever". Edumucate yourself, and then edumucate someone else.
Just leave the immature rants and raves to me. I got that base covered. Someone else can take up the mantel of civilized debate. I'm sick and tired of it. Besides, ad hominem is the only thing you "conservatives" understand.
Laughing all the way to the Neocon War Crimes Tribunal,
P.S. I actually love the liberals these days. They are currently God's gift to "conservatives". And I mean that.
P.P.S Not all Wisconsinites are sheeple. Matter of fact, I hear sheep are actually in the minority there, according to a recent Zogby poll. How's that for a mindfuck? Sheep in the minority. That's deep.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
0.0% All of the official story is accurate. All questions about 9/11 were settled a long time ago.
35.0% All of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld for security reasons.
40.0% Most of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld to spare the INCOMPETENT.
25.0% Most of the official story is accurate, but some details were withheld to spare the GUILTY.
30.0% Very little of the official story is accurate, and most of the guilty parties are Americans.
10.0% None of the official story is accurate. Commercial airliners did not strike any buildings.
0.0% I feel I know everything there is to know about 9/11.
40.0% I feel I know more about 9/11 than the average joe.
25.0% I feel I know little about 9/11.
15.0% This poll is perfectly framed to register all possible opinion ranges.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
We bloggers are an eclectically politicized community. Although we share many common values, we often differ in our philosophies. Perhaps the most potentially divisive point of contention is 9/11. By now almost everyone has heard some of the objecting viewpoints about what happened on 9/11. (If you haven't, just do what everybody else has done: watch Loose Change 2nd Edition. After that, you're on your own.) It looks like most people have "drawn their line in the sand," as In Plane Site director Dave VonKleist likes to say. Many humans have chosen to believe "the official story", while the rest have chosen to believe what I like to call "other-than". Within the "other-than" camp there are an infinite number of sub-camps, many of which have chosen to wage polemical war on the other sub-camps. Nico Haupt, for example, has even created a glossary of archetypes in an attempt to label every type of other-than believer in existence. Haupt is himself a leading member of the "911 TV fakery" sub-camp, which endeavors to document evidence of doctored 9/11 footage.
As soon as one begins spelunking into the nightmarish catacombes of TV fakery, the phenomenon of false recall, and certain existential concepts like the Jungian collective unconscious, the sheer enormity of The 9/11 Question becomes absolutely terrifying. The earnest seeker wonders whether anything can ever be known. The insurmountable complexity of 9/11 research disabuses this seeker of some very basic assumptions. Mugged for his compass, he is faced with a choice between petrifaction and wandering. Somnambulance is not an option; that would be tantamount to returning to square one. And he is too proud to freeze in place, so he wanders.
Inevitably he finds himself drawn to the sub-camps whose campfires burn brightest. Their ad campaigns are sharp, their numbers are great. They demand a reverence for World Trade Center Building 7, citing it as the bloodiest morsel of evidence against the perpetrators. Or they carry the Pentagon on their shoulders, measuring the 20-foot hole in the wall. Still others study the squibs and explosions emanating from the Twin Towers, with the patience of botanists identifying a new flower.
All of these divisions have been seen as either a bad thing or a good thing for the "other-than" movement. Those who see it as a bad thing hold that a Unified Theory would be more effective for getting the message out to the mainstream. Others, like Haupt, maintain that individualized research actually clarifies issues.
They're both right. We do need unity, but not based on a theory. We must base our unity on one thing and one thing only: love. Whoa! Love? Yeah, love. Remember that? That's a thing where you accept someone, or a number of people, or every human being on Earth, unconditionally. "Oh, come on, you're talking about a mother's love for her child." No I'm not. Who ever said unconditional love was exclusive to the realm of parenthood? I sure didn't. Or if I did, I was wrong. We have to begin to remember that love is our saving grace. It is the only thing that will ever solve the problems our sick and dying planet is facing right now. After all the tacticians have spoken, after all the activists have rallied, after all the diplomats have done their work and retired, the violence has remained. But so has love, quietly, in the background. We must cast from our minds all pretentions that love is an outdated cliche of the 60's, and start believing in the awesome transcendence of love. You can't knock that, no matter what cynical TV sitcom says otherwise.
So whether you think that 9/11 was an outside job or an inside job, I still love ya. Everyone I have spoken with here in the blogosphere has been a gift to my heart and mind. I have learned some very valuable things from people with whom I disagree on the 9/11 question. Long live unity.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
The music player I have posted is packed top to bottom with the best 9/11-related music I have found to date. I really recommend opening a second window to my home page so you can hear the entire playlist as you go about commenting and posting and tearing up the Web. The musical theme runs the gamut from industrial to folk to blues to hip hop to rock and pop and jazz. A preponderance of this music is available in MP3 form at 911podcasts.com. The player I am using is URL-based and is available at loudfusion.com; the MP3s are housed at fileden.com.
The order and content are sure to change from time to time as I find new music. If you have any requests or recommendations, please let me know. Happy listening. We all need a little musical support.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
What is battle? It is men in suits and military garb, in a room, with a big screen on the wall full of red dots and tactical layouts. The men pinch their chins between thumb and forefinger, muttering to a neighbor at the big round table. It is the president, cuffs rolled up, sincere in his leadership, facilitating a discussion of choices, of timing, of targets, of statistical analyses of collateral damage.
What is battle? It is a recruiting officer dressed up in finery of navy blue with a white hat. Through parking lots he trawls for prospective soldiers, bearing concert tickets and college scholarships, all authoritative manner and brotherliness.
What is battle? It is manufacturing plants full of mothers and fathers, cranking out military boots and bullets and shining up missiles for later use in the war for freedom, for justice, for the American way, for comic book archetypes of good guys against bad guys.
What is battle? It is an entire nation pulling together and rationing their moments of pleasure for the betterment of mankind.
What is battle? It is your intestines spilling out of your body and a last whimper for your mother (short amimation)
And now the famous anti-war poem by Wilfred Owen, written in 1917:
Dulce et Decorum Est*
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!–An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
*It is Sweet and Proper (to die for one's country.)
(And if you would like to hear it read by Mike Malloy, this is definitely worth hearing.)
Maybe Coulbeck knew where Lay's personal heaven is.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Incredible, isn't it. He really was a sharp dude. You may not have agreed with what he said, but by God, he said it, and good. So. What did happen? Why does nobody ever talk about how obviously intelligent he used to be? I offer six hypotheses in all sincerity:
1. Presenile dementia. He really is just losing it a la Reagan.
2. Slow poisoning. His cooks, Laura, and others close to him are conspiring against him to destabilize his mind via poison, thus making it more pliable, so that his status as a puppet will intensify.
3. Lie quota exceeded. He has lied too much, thus his conscience is waging a vengeful assault on the language centers in his brain.
4. Anti-depressants. Somewhat related to the third hypothesis. The stress of having to lie about an entire country has cast him into the bowels of depression. He is compensating with Prozac, Wellbutrin, or something else. Anti-depressants are notorious for numbing a person's thought and speech processes.
5. Coke burnout. He may still have been on a steady diet of coke during the time when the above video was shot, thus keeping him sharp. Subsequent withdrawal and abstinence left his brain without the acquired need for "wings".
6. Chronic stage fright. The moment his presidential prospects became likely, he lost his nerve permanently.
Any other theories?
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Here's how I make sense of it. Some call it "asymmetrical warfare" but that just rings a little too, oh, bureaucratic-sounding to me. I mean it's factually accurate, but it doesn't quite capture the situation in a nutshell. The term also implies that Lebanon as a whole committed the kidnappings. Which is a complete lie, as we well know. So the only conclusion I can come to is a really big one, with big implications: there is no such thing as a country. Borders seem really false to me. The only reason I can think of that borders exist is to designate certain populations as legitimate targets for scapegoatism and mass murder. When most world decisions are made by about 1% of the population (most likely much less), it's the other 99% that suffer, 99% of the time. This leads me to the further conclusion that nationalism and patriotism exist only to designate people as stand-ins or whipping boys for the sole purpose of further legitimizing the using of people as chesspieces. These people are inanimate objects in the eyes of all rulers. It's all a nice game for them. The only reason people don't rise up and kill all the rulers is because people are still stuck to the belief that their governments have their best interests in mind. Dissent is a mere thorn in their side; they quash it with charges of "treason" and whatnot. I think the people of Lebanon, as well as the people of the U.S., should rise up, but they won't, because we've all been conditioned to play the game. It sucks. That's all I can say about this right now.
As for the emerging great war in the Middle East, it will only get worse. I wonder whether it will expand beyond that region. I wonder if all hell will soon break loose. I wonder about WWIII, and whether it will be a spectacular, all-out, nuclear war; or whether it will be just a slow wearing down process that finally turns the tide against the world population explosion. I wonder if we'll ever see 7 billion people on the Earth.
I see our government legitimizing every act of genocide. I see our government saying things to the effect of, "We won't bomb you as long as you meet our impossible demands." I see a propaganda assault rising to a fever pitch. I see hopelessness and distrust of government everywhere amongst the masses, but with an accompanying sense of powerlessness. I see us all standing in the wings, watching, and when the genocide reaches us, we'll be powerless to stop it.
We all die sometime. But artifically-derived violence of man-on-man is not a good way to go out, because it hurts us right where it counts: in the soul. Where's the love? Where's the honor? Where are these fundamental underpinnings of the human heart? Where is our bravery, our self-respect, our compassion? Must everything be a matter of intellect and numbers? Isn't suffering a good enough reason to realize that all this is wrong?
Apparently not. We're caught up in abstractions like freedom and democracy, when the truth is self-evident: people are fucked. What good is democracy anymore? Where is it hiding? We've all been programmed so far. We still believe in a living, breathing America. We believe in a Constitution, a piece of paper that somehow protects our liberty and our right to live as we wish. It only works if most people still follow it. But most don't, not anymore. It's all windowdressing and PR campaigns.
We are a brilliant people, we Americans. We have derived countless labyrinthes of mental models, we have taken countless circuitous paths and U-turns to reach conclusions that are demonstrably false. Checks and balances, the Fourth Estate, the free press - these abstractions have set up a virtual reality in our brain, a virtual reality that is supposed to parallel what goes on outside in the physical world. A virtual reality that is supposed to serve as a road map and a guiding force with which to navigate the political terrain. But those maps are outdated. It's like hunting for treasure using a 17th-century pirate's map. It's just silly, to me.
What's reality, then? Dead people. Pain and suffering. No amount of debate between the "left" and the "right" will ever change that. The Malkins and the Moores, the O'Reilly's and the Donahues, these only distract us, it appears. Oh sure, I follow them as much as the next guy, but this is personal. My heart tells me everything I need to know.
I just feel so bad for those poor people in Lebanon, in Palestine, yes, even in Israel. It is a life of fear and distaster. Ours, on the other hand, is a life of a sense of impending doom. We all feel it in our guts and in our bones. Some kind of apocalypse is afoot. We don't know when or where or how, but we feel it is coming. I believe that feeling derives from an ancient karma, passed down ancestrally. It is true there is no distinction between now and then and what is to come. Time is indeed illusion, no matter how naive or new agey that may sound. We are born and we live and we die in the blink of an eye. In the same way, geography is meaningless. The big picture is that what happens to one person anywhere, also happens to all people everywhere, on the level of the soul. Your blood is my blood. It's one big mass mind - that's humanity.
God bless America? God bless Earth.
Friday, July 14, 2006
1. What is fascism? One professor says it's made of 14 attributes (Mike Malloy narrates.)
2. Remember when it was 2,000 and not 2,700? What's in a number, anyway? This should explain it fairly well.
3. And as long as we're talking about perspective, how about a nice map.
4. You know full well I can't let this post go by without my latest 9/11 (Blasted) Reality propaganda find (only 10 minutes long!)
And as long as Democracy is about to fall like giant Dominoe Theories on the heads of the entire Middle East, here are some real dominoes (best ever):
So the moral of today's collage is: get some perspective, but do try to have a nice day.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program. Uranium Enrichment Program.
Got it? Commence the murdering.
Adam Carolla, the man who can complain about anything, showed the world how to deal with neocons last Friday: call 'em on their bad manners, catch 'em in a lie, rub their nose in it, make 'em lie again (to back up the first lie), cut 'em off mid-sentence, tell 'em to get lost, hang up on 'em, laugh at 'em, make fun of 'em, call 'em a bitch, tell 'em to eff themselves, make a snide joke about their anorexia, laugh at 'em some more, call 'em a bitch again, lecture 'em for tardiness, call their book "crappy," and move on (MP3).
Listen and learn.
Fuck yeah, my friends, all around the world: fuck yeah.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
According to Dr. Barrett's bio on the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA) website:
Kevin Barrett has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. He grew up in a family of lapsed Unitarians (which is about as lapsed as it gets) and reverted to Islam in 1993, a move that gradually impressed upon him the gravity of the moral choices we make in this life. Barrett’s dissertation is on Islam and Moroccan legend. He is also the author and illustrator of the cult classic A Guide to Mysterious San Francisco, published under the pseudonym of “Dr. Weirde.” (He begs Allah’s forgiveness for that slightly twisted book.) Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job. In the summer of 2004 he founded 9/11 Truth Squad, a local group based in Madison, Wisconsin. In July, he rashly rejected a plum post-doc at the University of California because it was funded by the 9/11-disinformation-sponsoring CIA-linked Ford Foundation. Barrett has led several 9/11 Truth Teach-Ins at the University of Wisconsin, including a 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Truth Marathon on the third anniversary of the attacks. As of January 2005, he has made six guest appearances on local radio and television to discuss 9/11 truth. He is currently working on university research projects, writing and editing for the Muslim magazine al-Jumuah, and spearheading MUJCA-NET.
And now, the news. Dr. Barrett made headlines when he eloquently professed his views on 9/11 on June 28 on Jessica McBride’s local WTMJ-AM (620) Wisconsin radio talk show. In this interview he skillfully fielded all of Childgirl McBride's childish questions and accusations. ("Do you think Osama bin Laden is good or bad?", "Do you sympathize with the terrorists?", "Does this dress make me look fat?", "Who's cooler, Superman or Batman?", etc.) (Okay, so she didn't ask those last two, but she should have.) He also - and this is what set off the headline splash - explained how exactly he will be introducing his findings in a class he will teach this fall at UW Madison. The class is called Islam: Religion and Culture, and will cover a wide range of topics, including the so-called War on Terror. Although a few hundred pages of required reading will reflect the official lies we hear about all the time, about 72 pages of reading will include 9/11 truth. The students will be expected to weigh and consider both sides of the "argument" (if you can call a stand-off between ignorance and curiosity an "argument") and then come to their own conclusions. You can listen to the interview here, here, here, and here (4 parts, each about 5-10 minutes in length).
Upon hearing this interview, a number of government neocons immediately called for Dr. Barrett's summary dismissal from his upcoming fall semester post. The most vocal of these ignorance lovers were State Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Wisc.), and Democratic Governor of Wisconsin Jim Doyle. UW Madison Provost Patrick Farrell released a statement the following day (June 29) promising to review Dr. Barrett's "fitness" to teach.
For almost two weeks, we all waited and bit our nails. In the interim, many compared Dr. Barrett to one Ward Churchill. Churchill was the University of Colorado at Boulder professor who was fired for referring to some of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks "little Eichmans." The comparison is unwarranted, as Dr. Barrett himself explained on Childgirl McBride's radio show. Whereas Barrett is trying to find and share the truth, Churchill was just a coldhearted jerk making politically stupid and mean comments for its own sake.
Yesterday came great news, not only for the 9/11 truth movement, but for academic freedom in general. Provost Farrell released a decision to let Dr. Barrett stay on, stating, "Kevin Barrett can present his view as one of many perspectives on the event when he teaches the introductory course as scheduled this fall." Of course, the heads of Nass, Green, and Doyle all exploded in one gigantic blast of frustrated doublethink. You can bet they will continue to rail against free speech and free thought, especially since Green is running for Governor for the upcoming term.
Last night, Hannity and Colmes tried to make Dr. Barrett look stupid. It backfired:
I wrote Dr. Barrett a letter of support via email (email@example.com). I recommend you do the same. He's a real trooper, a courageous beacon of light, and a man who deserves great praise and positive attention. This is a time of real advancement. Don't let this candle burn out.
Meanwhile, perhaps it's time to play a little political hardball. The three horseman of the apocalypse du jour, Nass, Green, and Doyle, should all be targeted from now on. It's time to go Ken Starr on their ass. It's time to pull out your inner Karl Rove. It's time to sabotage them. We must destroy their reputations before they can do anymore damage. We must raise these three men up as sacrifical lambs to all those who would stand between us and the facts of reality. So I hereby declare an all-out political war on these three gentleman. If anyone has any dirt on these guys, please share it with the world. Be sure to forward me any information you might have. Together we can bury these assholes' political careers in one big unmarked grave. We have to discredit them beyond all repair. Do you know of any instances of child abuse, child pornography, child custody scandal, or anything else child-related about these guys? Do you know if any of these guys has ever been involved in any insider trading or lobbying scandals? Do you have any photographs of them picking their nose, grabbing their crotch, or the like? Any recordings of them swearing or taking the Lord's name in vein? Perhaps one of these guys has had a secret boyfriend, or committed adultery. I wanna know about it. Nobody's reputation is perfect. Let's find their fatal flaws, people.
It's time was stopped playing nice with these sons of bitches. The gloves are off.
Monday, July 10, 2006
|One more video for today. This one is also chock full of details I had not yet considered. Astoundingly, Abramoff plays a supporting role. I have not checked all the facts against other sources, but then, 9/11 is a huge topic. There should be a PhD program for 9/11.|
UPDATE: Here is a very short video of the Tribeca premier of Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime in May 2006. There is a short introduction, followed by a standing ovation.
Sunday, July 9, 2006
The Great Conspiracy
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Friday, July 7, 2006
1. In all that you do, consider its benefit or harm upon yourself, your children and your people.
2. All that which you do will return to you, sooner or later, for good or for ill. Thus strive always to do good to others, or at least strive always to be just.
3. Be honest with yourself, and with others. "This above all; to thine own self be true."
4. Humankind, and especially your own family and folk, has the spark of divinity within it. Protect and nurture that spark.
5. Give your word sparingly, and adhere to it like iron.
6. In the world, your first trust and responsibility should be to your own people. Yet, be kind and proper to others whenever possible.
7. What you have, HOLD!
8. Pass on to others only those words which you have personally verified.
9. Be honest with others, and let them know that you expect honesty in return, always.
10. The fury of the moment plays folly with the truth; to keep one's head is a virtue.
11. Know which battles should be fought, and which battles should be avoided. Also, know when to break off a conflict. There are times when the minions of chaos are simply too strong or when fate is absolutely unavoidable.
12. When you gain power, use it carefully and use it well.
13. Courage and honor endure forever. Their echoes remain when the mountains have crumbled to dust.
14. Pledge friendship and your services to those who are worthy. Strengthen others of your people and they will strengthen you.
15. Love and care for your family always, and have the fierceness of a wolf in their protection.
16. Honor yourself, have pride in yourself, do your best and forgive yourself when you must.
17. Try always to be above reproach in the eyes of the world.
18. Those of our people should always endure to settle any differences among themselves quietly and peaceably.
19. The laws of the land should be obeyed whenever possible and reason, for in the main they have been chosen with wisdom.
20. Have pride in yourself, your family and your folk. They are your promise for the future.
21. Do not neglect your mate and children.
22. Every one of our people should work according to the best that s/he can do, no matter how small or how great. We are all in this world together, thus we must always help each other along.
23. One advances individually and collectively only by living in harmony with the natural order of the world.
24. The seeking of wisdom is a high virtue. Love of truth, honor, courage and loyalty are the hallmarks of the noble soul.
25. Be prepared for whatever the future brings.
26. Life with all its joys, struggles and ambiguities is to be embraced and lived to the fullest!
Think about that.
The six insurers of the World Trade Center have not paid landlord Larry Silverstein $1.5 billion, even five years after the attacks. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wrote a letter of complaint to former Senate campaign opponent and current Insurance Department Superintendent Howard Mills.
According to the The New York Daily News: "Without the prompt payment in full ... both the pace and scope of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site are in jeopardy. And that is not an acceptable outcome," Schumer wrote in a letter to Insurance Department Superintendent Howard Mills. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Mills to employ the "full capacity" of the Insurance Department to take "immediate, aggressive, decisive action" against these "unjustifiably intransigent" firms. "We cannot allow these companies to use business-as-usual tactics to avoid paying what they owe," Schumer said. "Too much is on the line here." Asked about Schumer's demands, Insurance Department spokesman Michael Barry said the department "has been looking into this matter to ensure nothing stands in the way of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site."Mills unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Schumer in 2004. The Port Authority, which owns the WTC site, and Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein filed suit against the insurance companies last week. They accused the firms of using an April agreement that transferred rebuilding responsibilities from Silverstein to the bistate agency as a pretext for not paying the claims. Officials at the insurance firms have declined comment.
The state insurance Department should launch an investigation into six insurance companies that are seeking to "wiggle out" of paying $1.5 billon to rebuild the World Trade Center site, Sen. Chuck Schumer demanded yesterday.
"Without the prompt payment in full ... both the pace and scope of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site are in jeopardy. And that is not an acceptable outcome," Schumer wrote in a letter to Insurance Department Superintendent Howard Mills.
Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Mills to employ the "full capacity" of the Insurance Department to take "immediate, aggressive, decisive action" against these "unjustifiably intransigent" firms.
"We cannot allow these companies to use business-as-usual tactics to avoid paying what they owe," Schumer said. "Too much is on the line here."
Asked about Schumer's demands, Insurance Department spokesman Michael Barry said the department "has been looking into this matter to ensure nothing stands in the way of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site."Mills unsuccessfully attempted to unseat Schumer in 2004.
The Port Authority, which owns the WTC site, and Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein filed suit against the insurance companies last week. They accused the firms of using an April agreement that transferred rebuilding responsibilities from Silverstein to the bistate agency as a pretext for not paying the claims.
Officials at the insurance firms have declined comment.
Critical thinking time. Questions. That's all this is. Here goes:Why won't the 6 companies cough up? Is it just pure greed? I don't think so. This refusal to pay is the opposite of what they should do if they were merely looking out for their business interests. All their credibility is going out the window. This means far fewer customers for them.
So why won't they cough up? Do they have a legal basis? I don't think so. The Port Authority and Larry Silverstein "accused the firms of using an April agreement that transferred rebuilding responsibilities from Silverstein to the bistate agency as a pretext for not paying the claims." I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like a pretty weak defense on the part of the insurers.
Maybe they have a moral basis for not paying. Insurance companies often refuse to pay, and rightly so, whenever there is fraud. For example, if a landlord sets fire to his own property, and the insurance company finds out, the landlord is in trouble.
Was there some form of fraud? Did Silverstein "set fire" to the WTC? After all, it was he who gave the order to "pull" Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. He even admitted to it on PBS (24-second clip). It takes weeks of planning to pull off a controlled demolition. He couldn't have decided to pull the building and then rigged it all in one day. The building collapsed beautifully, with no casualties.
Here is Silverstein on Charlie Rose explaining that he would need "deep psychoanalysis" to describe why he would want to buy the entirety of the World Trade Center in the summer of 2001 and immediately take out the biggest insurance policy in the history of the universe ($3.5 billion, plus a couple more billion from the taxpayers in the form of Liberty Bonds.) (Note: watch Silverstein talk but with the volume muted. It's fascinating. The cognitive dissonance is uncontainable: he twitches and grimaces and looks like he's posessed. I swear, try it. You'll be shocked. Every few seconds, for a quarter of a second, his face contorts into some new aspect of hostility.)
So I ask you again. Why won't the insurers pay up? Are they really so stupid? Perhaps you're wondering why I'm so suspicious. Perhaps you're thinking, "Coincidences happen all the time, so quit jumping to conclusions." Well this isn't all I know. It's not even the tip of an iceberg.
The 7 insurers have already paid $2.4 billion out of the $4.6 billion they owe. In addition, the Liberty Development Corporation will approve $2.5 billion worth of Liberty Bonds in the coming weeks to help Silverstein rebuild Towers 2, 3, and 4.
I think the main crux of my point is that this insurance debacle is an opportunity to find out what the insurers know about the 9/11 attacks. Since they have a lot at stake, perhaps they are dragging their feet to buy more time as they conduct a fraud investigation of their own. It's just a hypothesis.
Thursday, July 6, 2006
May 17th – June 8th, 2006.
Participants: Musclemouth, John Doe, John Doe 2.
Names and locations of participants changed to protect the guilty.
Your job description is simple: report the facts. How ironic it is, then, that in order to fulfill that job description, you now have to put your job in jeopardy. In fact, simply searching for and knowing the facts can cripple your career.
I do not envy your position. I vacated the political journalism profession because I don't have the guts to ask the tough questions under pressure. I figured it would dishonor the profession for me to stay on and simply function as a stenographer or a press release rearranger. And that is exactly what most of you have been forced to become.
I do not blame you for being turned into a state press. The pressure to conform is pervasive. But now, here we stand. The truth is out. The evidence is unassailable. The World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition. The Bush Administration engineered the attacks. Every shred of the evidence can be redundantly corroborated by material freely available in the public sphere. This is the one issue you should risk your job and your reputation over. It is the one issue we all should risk our lives over.
It is time for a paradigm shift in the journalism industry. It begins with reporters and editors - just like you - with the courage to defy the intimidation tactics of the Administration. Conduct your own investigation. I am simply begging you. The films Loose Change Redux (Second Edition) and 911 Revisited can serve as some rather sober entry points.
P.S. Everybody is a journalist - either amateur (like myself) or professional (like so many of you).
So the planes didn't really hit the towers? The people on board those planes didn't really die? Come on, Musclemouth, this is crackpot stuff. You're better than this.
That's not what I said. Yes, planes hit the towers. Yes, people died. No, this is not crackpot stuff. The evidence is all there, if you can just muster the courage to look. There are many silly conspiracy theories about 9/11. Controlled demolition is not one of them. It is a fact. I direct you to Building 7, two blocks away. No plane hit that tower, and there were only a few small scattered fires in the building. It went down at 5pm that very same day in a controlled demolition, as starkly admitted by World Trade Center landlord Larry Silverstein on PBS in a September 2002 documentary. This directly condradicts the official repoorts by the 9/11 Commission and two other official reports, which all said the building went down due to fires. Controlled demolition requires weeks of planning. Is it not sane to posit that if Building 7 went down in this manner, and that if the fall of the Twin Towers looked exactly the same, that there is a possibility that the same thing caused them all to fall? Furthermore, no steel-supported building in history, either before or after 9/11 has fallen due to fire alone. And finally, over 50% of New Yorkers would, by your definition, be "crackpots", as these people think there was government complicity, according to a recent Zogby poll.
So the planes hit the towers, and then the government spontaneously decided to kill thousands of people in a controlled demolition? Presumably sneaking the explosives in after the planes hit? You're saying that the administration watched in horror as the planes hit, and then decided that the deaths caused by the crash itself were not sufficient for its nefarious political purposes, so then they decided to bring the buildings completely down?
Or are you saying the government engineered the planes hitting the buildings, too? In that case, it was rather nasty of them to kill the wife of the U.S. solicitor general, a good friend of the president. (Barbara Olson, who died in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.)
This is 100 percent crackpot. I would just let it go, but it does real damage when you spread this kind of sleaze without a shred of evidence to back it up. Plus, if you actually think about things for half a second, you'll see that your theories are absurd. (See above.) Just because Charlie Sheen says something doesn't make it true.
This tone of yours isn't indicative of a man who cares to learn anything, so let's just put this conversation to rest for now. Fair enough?
Well, I'm posing serious questions which, if you're so sure of your theories, you ought to be able to answer.
1. Did the Bush administration arrange for the planes to hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol? Or did they know in advance that it was going to happen?
2. If no, was it pure coincidence that the planes hit the towers the very day the government was ready to execute its long-planned controlled demolition of the towers?
3. If yes, why was it even necessary for the planes to attack? Why not just execute the controlled demolition and blame it on radical Islamists?
I'm ready to "learn." Educate me.
Thanks for being nicer. No need for getting all mudslingy. We're just a coupla guys with different data sets in hand.
OK. I'm supposed to convince you. To do that, and I must apologize for this, I must temporarily put off your questions until later. I have to address WTC7 first. It is the most easily provable aspect of the truth about 9/11. A monkey in a suit could win this case in any court of law. The monkey could even throw some of his own feces at the judge, and he would still win, because the evidence is just that...well...evident.
Most people aren't aware of WTC7. As you may already know, WTC7 collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 09/11/01. Why? How? Let's view the facts.
-No plane hit WTC7.
-NIST and FEMA basically said WTC7 collapsed due to fires. Not likely (as I will discuss in a moment).
-The 9/11 Commission Report astutely ignored the existence of WTC7. Now that's what I call creative problem solving.
-These three reports comprise the extent of the official line about WTC7, in a nutshell. (These three reports also form the basis of all other aspects of the official 9/11 story, but I am focusing solely on WTC7 here.)
-The NIST and FEMA reports abut WTC7 are...how can I put this kindly...unsatisfactory, if I may so euphemize. WTC7 could not have fallen solely due to fire. Steel-supported structures do not burn to the ground. It has never happened, either before or after 9/11. Fires have raged for days, even weeks in some cases, in other steel-supported structures. We're talking major skyscrapers, burning much hotter than did WTC7, and they stood unscathed. The fires in WTC7 were small, minor, and localized on two or three floors.
-But what about the diesel generators? Did they explode? There is no evidence of any diesel generators exploding.
-But what if the diesel generators did explode? What if the fires raged all over the building for hours? What if the whole thing was an unstoppable apocalypse of flame and hellfire? Would the building fall then? Again, no. High-grade steel melts at 3000 degrees farenheit. Way too touch for all that wimpy diesel fuel that was allegedly stored throughout the building.
-But wait, let's stretch the realm of impossibility to even greater universes of mindbogglingly improbable pseudo-science theories, and say that the fires did cause the collapse of WTC7. Would the building have fallen in the manner observed in countless videotapes? No no no. It fell uniformly on all sides, at freefall speed, and settled neatly onto its own footprint. The telltale "crimp" or "crease" was observed down the center of the structure. A crimp or crease is a term signifying the practice of exploding the center of a structure first, so that all subsequent explosions will cause the building to collapse into itself, rather than out into the street. The collapse of WTC7 showed all the signs of (none other than) controlled demolition.
Countless witnesses and videos corroborate what I am saying. Any demolition company employee will attest to these facts. Look it up and watch the footage yourself, from as many angles as you desire.
But now, we have our star witness: WTC landlord Larry Silverstein.
Larry Silverstein appeared on PBS in September 2002. He publicly admitted to giving the order to "pull" the building on 09/11/01. "Pull" is demolition slang for "demolish by explosives". He said they had to pull it because the fires were making it unsafe. He had the building evacuated, and at 5:20 p.m. they pulled WTC7. Boom, nice and neat.
There is only one possible conclusion for all this. Explosives were planted in WTC7 weeks ahead of 9/11.
So why, oh why did they do this? And HOW THE HELL did they sneak the explosives in? That's absolutely impossible! Ha, not really impossible at all. And who did it? But that's another subject for another day, if you care to learn more. Just please don't take my word for it. I'm sure you know perfectly well that there is a chance that I am lying to you. Research it, John Doe. But if I am not lying to you, then logic will force you to admit that I am probably correct in my conclusion.
At that point, you might likely ask, "So what?"
And I would answer: THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN WTC7. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF 'SPLAININ' TO DO.
Let's suppose for a second that everything you said in that last e-mail was true (which I doubt). If they decided to do a controlled demolition of 7 (a demolition that killed no one but presumably would have been done for safety purposes), how does that in any way, shape, or form prove that the two main towers came down in controlled demolitions (presumably with the intent to kill thousands of people)?
It doesn't. That wasn't the point of the email. I am simply bringing you back to square one - the weakest link in the chain of official lies: WTC7. You cannot dismiss the importance of such an event, especially since it was summarily dismissed by the 9/11 Commission - as if the spontaneous collapse of a 47-story monster of a skyscraper wasn't worthy of comment in a 500-something-page "report".
WTC7 simply serves as an entry point. Here is a piece of logic for you: if demolition is found to be the case in WTC7 (which it is), then isn't it a great idea to find out of the same is true of the other buildings that went down two blocks away on the same day?
No no no, I'm not so naive as to think it "proves" anything about the Twin Towers. I take the word "prove" pretty seriously. There is other data and factual analysis to pursue, but until you get past the WTC7 hump, you will never be able to believe anything at all.
You seem to be forgetting that controlled demolition requires weeks of planning. It could not have been "presumably" done for safety purposes. No. Your "presumption" is astoundingly dismissive.
John Doe, I don't know all the answers. You could interrogate me forever, or you could save us both a lot of time and put forth a little effort of your own. Let's at least have some common data between us. Don't make me do all the work.
You and I and everyone we know owes it to America to do a real investigation. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I haven't sent a mass email in many years. I am not a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot. I am a 9/11 researcher. So if you think you must label me, at least do me the tiny honor of letting me choose my own self-limiting label.
I am willing to admit to being wrong on some points and right on others. Contrary to popular belief, that is an honorable quality to posess. Please don't dismiss this whole thing. I am just trying to give you reason to research this on your own. Besides me, have you had any exposure whatsoever to the issue? Have you even read the official accounts by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and FEMA? Have you lifted one single solitary finger to honor the dead by investigating their deaths? This is the mother of all issues. This is the only issue I have cared about at all since I quit the journalism racket.
Why do I care about it? That much should be obvious. I care about it because it affects us all in a profound and fundamental way.
Sorry, I'm just ranting, but every time I offer evidence, people choose not to look at it. It is extremely frustrating. My debate skills are average at best. I'm not here to debate. I'm not here to argue. I'm here to offer a gift. I lay it at your feet. Don't you want to know what's inside? Aren't you going to pick it up and open it? How can you know whether you'll like it unless you open it? Are you afraid that if you open it, you will succumb to some kind of intrinsic brainwashing? Are you afraid that if you learn the truth, that you too will feel compelled to spread it around a little, and that you will then have to answer to a bunch of people who suddenly want to prove you wrong by demonstrating that you don't know everything there is to know about 9/11?
I seriously fail to understand why you wouldn't be curious enough to look at the issue for yourself.
You're backpedaling a long, long way. In the first e-mail you said unequivocally, "The Bush administration engineered the attacks."
I have browsed the 9/11 report. True, I haven't done a full investigation, but the whole theory is so logically absurd on its face that I feel I have enough information to make the judgment that we were attacked on 9/11 not by the Bush administration, but by radical Islamic fanatics.
I never retracted that original statement. I suggest you inspect your inspection skills.
So you're a big fan of evidence. Tell me: what evidence, besides reputation and hearsay, do you have that Osama bin Laden did it? I can tell you right now: none. Because there is none.
And tell me: did you believe the photos of the WMDs that turned out not to be WMDs?
I have already supplied you with plenty of evidence regarding my own claims. I believe you are neck-deep in bias.
I'm not asking anyone to change his political affiliation or anything. Just begin with science. Can't go wrong there. Please review this paper. I challenge you to consider what it says before dismissing it.
You didn't retract your statement, but you acknowledged that you don't have the evidence to back it up. (You said the collapse of 7 in no way proved the two main towers came down in controlled demolitions.)
There is redundant evidence of Osama bin Laden's direct role in several attacks, including the 1998 attacks at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, the 2000 Cole attack, and the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 hijackers have been tied directly to his organization and his money. Bin Laden himself has taken credit for the attacks. This is all detailed ad nauseum in the 9/11 Commission Report and elsewhere. Of course, you'll dismiss this with the same line that conspiracy theorists always use. The 9/11 Commission Report was a government whitewash, you'll say. Never mind that several of the members are strongly partisan Democrats (i.e. Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, not exactly one inclined to go easy on the Bush administration).
I acknowledged that the email in question did not contain the evidence to prove controlled demolition in WTC1 and WTC2, not that I don't have the evidence. Are you running my emails through two or three languages of a translation program before reading them?
After your science lesson (here I link to it again because I know you didn't read it the first time), ask yourself a couple of questions. Then reward yourself for all your hard work and have a movie night. (See if you can spot Osama. Give up? Fooled you! That man is an imposter.)
This ain't politics. This is survival. I guess we're both fighting for the same thing then. But we definitely disagree on the what the truth is. We should still work with the same data though.
So, in the name of mutual education, could you please give me quick synopses of what happened in the 1998 attacks at the U.S. embassies in East Africa and the 2000 Cole attack? I don't care what version you give me...well the official version is fine I guess. For now. I would appreciate it, since I have gone to all the trouble of digging up stuff from my side of the line in the sand and all.
Look ma, no ego! I can admit not knowing something!
Oh, and just to fulfill your widlest fantasies about being able to categorize people and accurately predict their words: The 9/11 Commission Report was a government whitewash. Happy birthday.
The website 911proof.com presents better opening arguments than mine.
I haven't replied sooner because I was rather busy with grad school graduation and other things.
I think before I go trolling through lots of fringe websites, you should answer one overarching question. Unless you can answer this question, your whole theory is absurd on its face. The question is this:
How do the planes fit into the story?
You have suggested that the government planted explosives in the World Trade Center weeks ahead of the attack in preparation for a controlled demolition. If that is the case, it seems to me one of the following has to be true:
1. The Bush administration did not know the planes would attack. In this scenario, the Bush administration was prepared for the controlled demolition, and lo and behold, these planes coincidentally hit the very buildings they were planning to blow up, providing a convenient excuse to go ahead and do it.
2. The Bush administration did know the planes would attack -- and possibly colluded with al-Qaeda in planning the attack. Then, after the planes attacked, they conducted a controlled demolition. In this case, again, I wonder why they would kill the wife of Ted Olson, a close personal friend of the president's.Surely you can at least answer this most basic of questions rather than just sending me another link.
P.S. I'm sure you noticed that in bin Laden's most recent video, he once again claimed responsibility for the attacks.
I don't know. Here's a link.
Hi John Doe,
Good to hear from you. I'll try to answer your questions the best I can, but I must admit I find it frightening that you consider me to be your only portal into the vast world of 9/11 evidence to the contrary. I am not a very good debater. What I am good at is research.
I also must admit that my views have changed slightly since last we talked. It's not backpedaling - call it having an open mind. It's important for me to keep refining my information base. For example, I am not so sure Bush himself knew about the attacks. Some elements of the Administration are what I am most concerned about. Many clues point to Cheney. Many also point to then-Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Richard Myers. The only evidence I have come across that seems to implicate Bush is his odd behavior at the elementary school when he allegedly received word that the second plane had struck. He just sat there for another 20 minutes and continued reading the goat story. Bush supporters dismissed the matter by saying that Bush didn't want to scare the kids. Bush haters like Michael Moore said it was because Bush was too scared to move, or too dumb, or something. Some 9/11 theorists contend that he didn't move because he knew (or his staff knew) that he wasn't a target. These theorists point out that standard operating procedure in the case of a hijacking over American territory was to immediately assume that the president is a target and move him, pronto, to an undisclosed location. However, this point is just a theory, an inference, a guess - and I just can't sign on to that contention right now.
So your point about Bush having a close friend who died in the attacks - that's a really good point. What I'm saying is that yes, perhaps Bush didn't know. I am aware that this answer may frustrate you or lead you to further doubt my conclusions. But I simply do not know all the answers. There are many holes in the puzzle as yet, because I will never have all the information. There will never be a time when we will know all the answers. The best way to go about researching 9/11 is to look at the three official reports (the NIST report, the FEMA report, and the 9/11 Commission report), along with the unofficially official (my coinage) stories that came from various members of the administration, the media, a number of experts and professionals, and the general public. Then you have to try to corroborate everything that was shown and said. Then you find the inconsistencies, and focus on them for follow up.
So when you ask, "How do the planes fit into the story?" you are assuming that there is a complete story. There is no such thing. See what I mean? That's why it's so hard to answer your questions. You are narrowing the field of inquiry by assuming that I have all the answers. If you can realize that, then please take that into context when I attempt to answer. Fair enough? I mean seriously, I'm trying to be fair here. You asked me not to simply provide you with links. You asked me to debate instead. Okay. Fine. But if you will not do your own research, you will be forced to either believe or disbelieve everything I say, and you will never be able to see the raw facts for yourself. It's called hearsay, and it's a disservice to the institution of investigative research.
With that in mind, I want you to know that my goal here is to convince you to look into the matter yourself. You are like two-thirds of America in that you only have about 2% of the facts. The other one-third of us have decided to take the self-censoring, non-curious, irresponsible media to task, and really go and find the answers. We are just a bunch of independent citizens without the might of the corporate media to fund and disseminate our massive cooperative research project. We do it in our spare time for free, purely out of a sense of duty. You gotta hand it to us - even if you decide to ridicule us for believing our own eyes, you have to admit that we are just as patriotic as the next guy. And it's not partisan either. Many Republicans have joined the enquiry. I happen to think that Clinton was also a dirty, filthy murderous bastard. I am constantly trying to stay as objective as possible.
I hope you don't mind my wordiness. I know you mean business when you ask these questions, and no, I am not trying to front-load my answers with disclaimers. What I am simply trying to do is give you a little context first. Okay? Now for your questions.
1. The Bush administration did not know the planes would attack. In this scenario, the Bush administration was prepared for the controlled demolition, and lo and behold, these planes coincidentally hit the very buildings they were planning to blow up, providing a convenient excuse to go ahead and do it.
First, we have to understand what is meant by "the Bush administration". Yes, I am the one who first introduced the term into our discussion. Fair enough. So what I meant was that there is a group of people within, behind, above, and otherwise connected to, the Bush Administration. The Administration is its locus, its focal point, its set of levers to push and pull in order to influence events. Some members of the Administration are straight-up perpetrators. We are currently in the process of trying to prove which specific individuals they are. Other members are not aware of the plan, but do willfully act, as per their orders in the age-old command structure, to enable or cover up the machinations of the plot.
Secondly, we have to ask ourselves who it was specifically that had the power to prepare for a controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein, who is not a member of the Bush Administration but who does have plenty of power as the landlord of the WTC, had the ability to plant explosives or have them planted. Of course, he's an old man, and we're talking about a lot of explosives, so we can conclude that he would have to enlist help. But don't forget that Silverstein, for years, owned just Building 7. It wasn't until July 2001 that he bought the entire complex - less than two months before 9/11. He subsequently took out the largest insurance policy in the history of the Universe. The policy was spread across 6 different insurers, thus diluting collusion, and specifically covered acts of terrorism. This is a good idea of course, since the WTC was indeed attacked by terrorists 8 years earlier, as we all know. When 9/11 happened, he was subsequently awarded 5.1 billions dollars in money and Liberty bonds from the insurance companies as well as from the U.S. Congress. A year after 9/11, he appeared in an interview in a 9/11 documentary on PBS. In that interview, he said, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Mind you, it takes weeks to prepare a building for a controlled demolition. He later attempted to "clarify" what he meant: by "it" he meant the contigent of firefighters remaining in the building. Yeah right. That is a pathetically cobbled lie. Don't throw a handful gravel on the grass and try to tell me it's an interstate highway, okay?
So, who organized the actual work of planting the explosives? I don't have the answer, but there are leads.
Enter Marvin Bush, George W. Bush's little brother and member of the board of directors of Securacom, the company that handled security for the World Trade Center, Dulles Airport, and American Airlines. I'll give you one guess as to when his company's security contract with Larry Silverstein was scheduled to run out. Ready? 09/11/01. Hey, that's a pretty sweet coincidence. Listen, most of this stuff looks like massive coincidence at first glance. But that's why the argument must be made cumulatively. When you add up all the coincidences, you get one big suspicion. Here's another coincidence: one week before 9/11, all of the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from WTC1, 2, and 7.
That leaves the "lo and behold" part of your possible scenario. All I can say is, no, it's not a happy coincidence. The planes were absolutely necessary. That's the "psychology" part of "psyop" - or psychological operation. Without the planes, you can't blame it on terrorists. Make sense? Pretty simple actually. If you want to stun the populace and take over a country, you have to shock everybody, all at once. Listen, have you ever heard of the Reichstag fire in pre-Nazi Germany? Story goes, a communist set fire to the parliament building. But when the Berlin wall came down, a motherload of old documents were declassified, and some of them showed that it was Hitler's men who started the fire, and used the commie as a patsy. This was a pivotal event in Hitler's rise to power. Or have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? That was a document from 1962. It was a proposal by then-Chariman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer to stage a false flag attack and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to attacking that country. When JFK received that document, he fired Lemnitzer. How about when President Polk sent a bunch of troops into Mexico to provoke an attack and then lie and say it happened on American soil to start the Spanish American War? Governments do this kind of stuff all the time. Why should America be any different? We're not any different. This is a democracy only in name and mythology. Everybody knows Washington is just as incestuous as any other country's halls of power. Come on, as a reporter, are you still naive enough to believe that we live in a democracy? It's all about power and money and Machiavellianism, to this very day, to this very moment. The rules have never and will never change.
2. The Bush administration did know the planes would attack -- and possibly colluded with al-Qaeda in planning the attack. Then, after the planes attacked, they conducted a controlled demolition. In this case, again, I wonder why they would kill the wife of Ted Olson, a close personal friend of the president's.
Yes, certain members of the Administration knew the planes would attack. As for a possible collusion with Al Qaida (many spellings exist, so don't knock me for that), I am not so sure. There is little evidence of any involvement with Al Qaida. Condoleeza Rice herself said that there was planty of evidence, and that the Administration would release the evidence when security concerns will allow. But we are still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. Did you see the Dec. 13th 2001 Osama video yet? If you saved my last email, go ahead and watch it. You won't need to watch the whole hour to see that it's obviously not Osama. It took me about ten minutes of watching that fat black man with the small nose and the silly grin to be concinced of the pathetic illegitimacy of the video. I don't know why they didn't try to find an actor who looks more like Osama. Maybe Americans really are that blind, and the Administration knows it. I don't know.
Let's see, here's another piece of evidence that supposedly links to Al Qaida: the Magic Passport. This passport was found on top of some of the rubble after the Twin Towers collapsed. It supposedly belonged to the pilot of one of the planes. It was the sole link to finding the rest of the alleged hijackers within three little days of the attacks. The official conspiracy theory says that each plane hit the building and exploded in an incredible flash of fire hot enough to begin a structural failure that would eventually take down a steel framed building. The passport of the pilot flew out of the pocket of the pilot, through a jet fuel explosion of great magnitude, down through the air, paused in the air, waited many minutes for the towers to collapse, and then resumed its descent to land, unscathed, on top of the rubble. I don't know whether it was a little bit singed or not. (That's a sarcastic joke, in case you couldn't tell.)
Here's something else: an alleged 5 members of the 19 alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11. Why haven't the mainstream media pursued this incredible feat of ressurection? I mean, if people are coming back from the dead, shouldn't there be a news story about it? Well there is a news story about it. PLENTY. It appears in the German mainstream media for one. It appears all over the independent news sources on the Internet, for another.
As for that recent Osama "video" tape, you should not have brought that up. Since we are debating and all, I find your comment to be an opportune moment to undermine your own credibility, John Doe, by pointing out that you could not have possibly actually seen that video. And that is because it was not a video tape, but an audio tape. OOPS. John Doe, please. That's mainstream stuff. Even you should know about that. Anyway, sure, I'll admit that there is a possibility that it wasn't faked, but are you going to tell me that just because somebody says something is true, you're going to accept it? I mean, you're being so damn hard on me, making me do all your research for you, refusing to admit when I am right but taking every opportunity and then some to try and point out that perhaps I don't know everything and therefore probably know nothing. And you're going to tell me that you're so incredibly biased that you can't even WATCH the December 13th 2001 videotape of fake Osama? Are you trying to brainwash yourself? Are you too afraid of the truth to look at it? I mean I know, I know, you probably want to be able to sleep at night and so would rather not subject yourself to something that would undermine your whole way of thinking. It makes psychological sense to me. But we have to be grownups about this, and look at the matter from all sides, and do our own research, and not just believe what Musclemouth says, or what George Bush says, or what Talking Head says.
I hope this addressess all your concerns. If you want to go on grilling me instead of conducting your own investigation, I'm game. I'll do my very best. And I'll be as openminded as possible to your viewpoint. Hell, I respect your viewpoint enough to take all this time answering questions. Believe it or not, you're not the only person who disagrees with me.
By the way, here's a link (I know, I know, but listen) to something that CONTRADICTS some of Loose Change 2nd Edition. Yes, I actually go about this in a levelheaded manner. I can listen to refutations, but only if they are well researched and well constructed, and not just based on some dogmatically accepted, endlessly parroted clichees. Nothing is "patently" true or false "on its face". Everything requires research and verification.
And yes, sometimes even revision. (No, not as in "Holocaust revision", but as in "examining your own preconceptions.")
After accusing the Bush administration of mass murder of American citizens, with not a scintilla of evidence to back your claim; after saying that Clinton was also a "dirty, filthy, murderous bastard"; and after accusing me of being an ignorant nitwit, I hope you'll now admit that your opposition to "mudslinging" is, to say the least, rather selective.
This is definitely a book you should read. Hofstadter was writing about paranoia on the right (of which there was plenty), but now the predominant practioners of the paranoid style in American politics are, like you, on the far left.
I'm sorry. I went a little far in my personal assaults. But I never accused you of ignorance. I accused you of naivetee.
And I am not paranoid.
Nor am I on the left. I am a libertarian at heart.
I'll look into the book.
I wish you would respond in some detail to the points I brought up...I took a lot of time to respond to you. If I didn't care on some level, I wouldn't bother.
For real man, let's start over, but in a civil manner. I'll promise civility if you will. Deal?
For real, I'm sorry I insulted you.
All right. I'm at work now so can't respond in detail at the moment.
Awesome, thanks man. Looking forward to your response. No rush.
So I went and dug up the first chapter of The Paranoid Style in American politics. Bearing the same name as its parent book, the essay has apparently become a classic in political science circles. For good reason, too, I would say. What makes it unique is its attempt to summarize political movements not by way of economics, but by way of the study of rhetoric. Ultimately, the paranoid style can be characterized as enshrining scholarly research in the holiest regard while at the same time divorcing it from the fantastical conclusions it is supposed to uphold. The paranoid stylist, in effect, insulates himself from reality by an impenetrable barrier of footnotes.
That is a fascinating and worthwhile way to explain the psychology of Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, and Anti-Communism -- the very conspiracy theory movements Hofstadter targets in that famous essay. In fact, the Hofstedterian paranoid style only applies to people whose paranoia is focused on a specific religion, ideology, or ethnicity. They believe that there is a vast infiltration on all levels, from presidents and corporate executives on down to streetsweepers and circus lions, by a whole class of people hellbent on destroying the world. This is the type of paranoia Hofstedter is talking about.
Let's see, what's the War on Terror all about? I had the answer here somewhere... Ah. Here it is: MUSLIMS.
Perhaps if he had written his essay today, he would be targeting the paranoid stylings of Anti-Islamists.
All I'm saying here is that the argument can be made that not just the 9/11 truth movement, but also those who believe the official line - in effect, everybody - can be shown to paranoid.
As President Bush has said countless times, the war on terror is not a war against Islam. It is a war against those who use Islamic fundamentalist ideology to justify the murder of innocent people, as in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, there is now a war going on within Islam between moderates who want to live in peace, and jihadists like bin Laden and the late Zarqawi. It is not paranoid to simply recognize the reality: There is a small but worrisome group of radical Islamists around the world who are plotting and conducting terrorist attacks against the West and their opponents within the Islamic world. Why you think the civilized world is wrong to defend itself against this threat is beyond me. This is not paranoia; this is facing reality and doing what is necessary to defend civilization.
You on the other hand demonstrate all of the hallmarks of the paranoid style in American politics. In your view of the world, vast unseen forces, working in the shadows, control the destiny of mankind. The conspiracy is, paradoxically, controlled by a tiny group yet knowingly participated in by many. No matter what argument I make, no matter what fact I cite, you will dismiss it because it was reported in the mainstream media. On the other hand, you accept without question everything you read on every fringe lunatic website that conforms to your paranoid views. Even though you can't answer a basic question like how the planes fit into the story, this doesn't stop you from concluding, on the basis only of innuendo and of no hard evidence whatsoever, that the administration plotted the attacks. You admit you have no knowledge whatsoever of the 1998 African embassy attacks, nor of the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, both carried out by al-Qaeda. If you don't even know these basic parts of the story, how can you jump to such damning conclusions? (And you accused me of not knowing the facts.)
You constantly ignore basic facts. For example, when you question the authenticity of recent bin Laden videotapes and audiotapes, you totally ignore the fact that the Bush administration did not produce them. They first appeared on al-Jazeera, a rabidly anti-American TV network based in Qatar. Is al-Jazeera part of the conspiracy, too? What about independent analysts like Peter Bergen (who has interviewed bin Laden) who say the tapes are legitimate? Is he also part of the diabolical Bush administration plot, even though he has criticized the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror?
This is the problem with paranoid conspiracy theorists like yourself. In order for your theories to be true, there must have been a conspiracy so vast and all-encompassing, so widely known to so many people yet mysteriously never leaked, that it absolutely defies plausibility. Your tactic is to assume a conspiracy exists, and then accuse anyone who questions your theory of naivete. It's bogus and irresponsible, and it should be recognized as such.
Thanks for your somewhat more serious response. Here I will attempt to address each of your points.
You said, "In order for your theories to be true, there must have been a conspiracy so vast and all-encompassing, so widely known to so many people yet mysteriously never leaked, that it absolutely defies plausibility."
That is a popular misconception. To dispel it, all you have to do is get your understand these two concepts from the United States Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003:
(DOD) 1. Establishment and management of an organization so that information about the personnel, internal organization, or activities of one component is made available to any other component only to the extent required for the performance of assigned duties.
chain of command
(DOD, NATO) The succession of commanding officers from a superior to a subordinate through which command is exercised. Also called command channel.
In other words, it is possible to participate in a conspiracy without knowing it. For one example, the radar operators in the FAA and NORAD were instructed to ignore the many confusing false blips on their screens that were appearing due to the inordinate number of military drills taking place at the time of the attacks.
You said, "You admit you have no knowledge whatsoever of the 1998 African embassy attacks, nor of the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, both carried out by al-Qaeda. If you don't even know these basic parts of the story, how can you jump to such damning conclusions? (And you accused me of not knowing the facts.)"
I was asking you out of an admitted lack of knowledge about the two events and an ever-present curiosity and desire to know as much as I can. I am now aware of the two events. That represents an improvement on my part. I am not jumping to conclusions. I did not accuse you of not knowing the facts; I accused you of not seeking the facts.
You asked three unrelated questions that serve no other purpose than to demonstrate your emotional attachment to the issues. Any of these questions, along with your questions about the planes, deserve more than a nasty email discussion:
Q: "Is al-Jazeera part of the conspiracy, too?"A: I don't know, but I'll look into it.
Q: "What about independent analysts like Peter Bergen (who has interviewed bin Laden) who say the tapes are legitimate?"
A: I don't know, but I'll look into it.
Q: "Is he also part of the diabolical Bush administration plot, even though he has criticized the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror?"
A: I don't know, but I'll look into it.
You said of my research, "It's bogus and irresponsible, and it should be recognized as such."
Bogus it's not; I am sincerely looking for answers. Irresponsible it's not; my sense of responsibility is what fuels my research. You may recognize me as a pink elephant if you like; that's your right.
As for all your other wild assumptions about what I think about you, people who disagree with me, the mainstream media, and so on and so forth, I will simply not respond. Instead I will hope for a more elevated approach from you next time, and look forward to an improved and more streamlined dialogue.
This last e-mail of yours has absolutely zero intellectual content, so I really have nothing further to add at this time.
Translation: There is nothing in the email you find targetable. This proves to me that you are incapable of agreeing. Here's an experiment:
The earth revolves around the sun. Agree or disagree?
Actually, nothing in the e-mail strengthens your case or makes any point to which I must respond. Try again.
Compartmentation and chains of command allow for large operations to be carried out without any subordinate agents seeing the big picture. It's actually a pretty mundane and ubiquitous phenomenon. Most human organizations are structured that way.
New plan. After re-reading our entire exchange from beginning to now, and having graciously given you enough information and evidence to chew on for a lifetime, I've decided that the timbre of your emails reminds me of that of the average television commentator: vapid, uncurious, piggish, prickly, icy, barren, unpleasant, obfuscatory, adversarial, and completely lacking in any trace of a rational mind beyond the reptilian, primitive, or otherwise prototypical. It's not that you disagree with me; I have actual friends who disagree with me. It's that you have demonstrated nothing but a paralyzing fear of the unknown and a tragically accurate facsimile of jingoistic expression. I have been man enough to admit when you are right, whereas you have proven unable to concede the most insignificant defeat. You have invented approximately 95% of the statements you have falsely attributed to me. You began this waste of time with an insult and have continued unapologetically in that brutish vein until now. So unless you can begin to credibly respond directly to the content of my research, just please go find some other upstanding member of reality with whom to rehearse for your upcoming talking head job interview. Your attitude is abhorable. Change it.
Actually this exchange began with your unsubstantiated charge against the Bush administration of mass murder of American citizens. If you said, "There are some lingering questions about 9/11 that still need to be answered," that would be one thing. But no, you said, "The Bush administration engineered the attacks." (I love that vague word, "engineered.") A rational mind would recognize that in order to make such charges, you had better have solid evidence to back up your claims. Instead, you traffic in innuendo, paranoia, and incoherent conspiracy theories. You try to get a leg up on opponents not by offering clear arguments, but merely by claiming that anyone who doesn't buy your absurd ideas is naive, uncurious, and jingoistic. It's a reprehensible tactic.
You wouldn't know a rational argument if it rammed you up the ass. You made some bizarre comment about how my questioning your case for a doctored bin Laden video showed my emotional attachment to the issue, failing to recognize that I neatly demolished your theory by raising those points. For some reason you think this exchange should consist of you narrating the "facts" of the case as you see them, and me meekly accepting them. You just can't take it when I start challenging you. You're weak and pathetic.
In addition, you're a drug addict. As I recall from our time in D.C., you were doing about every drug known to man. News flash: Drugs affect your cognitive abilities and judgment. It was probably a bad idea for me to engage in an argument with a drug addict, but I find your ideas so reprehensible that I felt it necessary. Below is a link to some substance abuse treatment centers in your area. I hope you'll get cleaned up.
I'll leave you with this positive note. If at any point any conclusive proof emerges to support your theory (though to say you have a theory is a bit of a stretch, since you won't even lay out its main points), then I will come back and acknowledge it. I'll also jump off the Capitol dome.
This email actually made me laugh. Especially the drug addict stuff. I hope you'll go and accuse Tom, Jen, Jerry, and Dave of the same affliction. Man, that was a great time. You should have been there. You could have got your peace and love on. Maybe you would have found your true calling in life. Just imagine it: John Doe with long hair, a tie-dye, and a back of nose candy. Reporting the news. Well, if you subtract the hair and the tie-dye, I've probably got it right on the nose. Or you've got it. On the nose. Tee hee. Anyway, if you jump off the Capitol dome, be sure to remember me as you fall.
And now an excerpt from the annals of rap music:
Enemy lines define exactly who we gotta hate
People love it when people put other people in their place
Increase your understanding with the lines in your face
With age, all imaginary lines will be erased
Phone lines for bylines doing coke lines in skylines
Lines in the sand and Gregorian timelines
The thickening poverty line is a sickening sign
That this mythical monolothic America's in decline
Furthermore, take a half-hour and read this. All your paranoid fantasies die away, courtesy of the folks at Popular Mechanics (that hotbed of vapid, uncurious, piggish, prickly, icy, barren, unpleasant, obfuscatory, adversarial, jingoistic fools).
My Dear John Doe,
Very good. You actually went out and did some research. Hats off to you. Apparently my tactic of attacking you personally is an effective one. The thing about people like you is you're not interested in actual information until someone outright bullies you. You respond well to ad hominem attacks, because you do it yourself. I call it fighting controlled demolition with controlled demoltion. Ha! I'm clever, aren't I? Don't answer that. This is actually kind of fun. I haven't met up with one of you shallow, immature, e-idiots in quite awhile. All you do is muddy the issues with bias and condescension. But you'd be too weak and pathetic yourself to do it in a face-to-face encounter. In your mind, big fightin' words are best left to the safe and secure world of virtual reality. If you and I ever meet up in the flesh for a real tete-a-tete, I will bury you. And when you reawaken like the zombie thay you are, I will bury you again. And again and again, until your will to fight the unwinnable war with me dies forevermore. You'll be doing a lot of roof-jumping if you keep on with this.
Anyway, I'm way ahead of you. I read your Popular Mechanics story. Here is a detailed, point-by-point analysis that should effectively rape you in the ass with rational thought:
Also, Scientic American followed in Popular Mechanics' weak and cowardly style of straw man "debunking" in this article:
Aren't I nice? I just handed you another sword to fight with. You need all the help you can get. Unfortunately, you will impale yourself on this article.
Here is the debunking of the Scientific American "debunking":
Bring it on. Let's roll. Point by point, I will destroy you every time. And I don't even have to be a good "debater". All I have to do is show you what I have seen. You are either with the truth movement, or you are with the real terrorists.
I remember you saying that you were "conservative about everything except the death penalty" back in D.C. Is that still true? (My question doesn't relate to our ongoing Biggest Cock contest; I'm just curious.)
I'll let you go ahead and have the last word. I've already taken you way more seriously than you deserve, but I definitely don't have any more time to argue with a stark raving lunatic. So go ahead, blaze away, send one more scathing e-mail. I won't respond. I will simply repeat my pledge that if at any point any conclusive evidence emerges to back your claims, I will be the first to acknowledge you were right. But if we should live a thousand years, there is not a chance in hell that your theories will ever gain any credence with any respectable, intelligent human being.
In all honesty, I do think you're intelligent. I hope you'll save all our past emails, so that you will have those links for future reference. Most of what is known about 9/11 was originally culled from mainstream news sources and original documents; it's the underground communities, however, that have had the independence necessary to put the pieces together. My opinions about you as a person are irrelevant, as are yours about me. Just get the info, and then draw your own conclusions. Don't worry, you won't catch some conspiracy theory cooties or anything. Yes, some people in the 9/11 research communities are admittedly overzealous. But you can still see what they have to say, and check their assertions against the mainstream sources. You'll see for yourself what checks out and what is wrong. There is no "unified theory" about 9/11. There are just details here, details there - a cumulative argument, if you will. So far, the best single site I have found for real analysis is 911research.com.
Best of luck in whatever you do. Grad school and work and all that. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're a knuckledragger. But good luck.
END OF COMMUNICATION WITH JOHN DOE. BEGIN COMMUNICATION WITH JOHN DOE 2.
Taboo? Or Downright Verboten?
This week's release of the Pentagon tape showing a white flash and a big explosion was widely reported. The video revealed nothing new or substantive, but most media treated the release with a tone of "putting the issue to bed."
Some bedtime story. "Once upon a time, a plane ran into the Pentagon. The only surviving evidence of the event was hundreds of conflicting eyewitness reports and a grainy stop-action videotape that would put most UFO sightings to shame. Sweet dreams."
But you didnt tell the ending yet! Every story has an ending!
Shut up, you little brat. Go to sleep.
I refuse. There are an alleged 84 other missing videotapes confiscated by the FBI on that fateful day. At least two interested parties Judical Watch and flight77.info are currently pursuing additional Freedom of Information Act litigation to secure the release of those tapes. Where does that litigation currently stand? What does the FBI have to say about it? And dammit, show me the plane!
That's it. No supper for you tomorrow night.
Your threats dont scare me. This could be a great story. What about the confiscated photograph, taken before the wall collapsed, that shows a hole of only 16 feet in diameter? What about the lack of wreckage of any kind? What about the two-foot engine turbine - the one that could not possibly have come from a passenger liner - allegedly found onsite?
That's crackpot stuff. Were going to have to institutionalize you.
Whatever. I just want a good story. One that makes an iota of sense. Is that so crazy?
Yes, it's crazy. You're no son of mine.
You know, come to think of it, I am crazy. I am crazy because I see a veritable plethora of evidence that directly contradicts the official line, yet no one seems to care. Am I the only one who believes his own two eyes? Heres a story for you. Once upon a time, there was a little thing called investigative journalism. Then one day, it just disappeared. Sweet dreams.
Thanks for the op-ed Musclemouth. Unfortunately, you caught me just as I was taking down that feature on my site. I determined that it was arrogant of me to offer that "opportunity" when I don't allow direct postings to myite...and only one other person had ever taken advantage of it over 5 months. So I thought it was making me look a little silly. As for the op-ed, I think you need to reference Occam's Razor, which basically says the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate -- it was just a few dozen crazy people taking down some planes. I'm just not one for conspiracy theories.Best of luck,
-John Doe 2
Hi John Doe 2,
Thanks for the reply; that's alright. I do enjoy your blog, by the way. I find your equal-opportunity critiques of the political spectrum very credible. Libertarian Democrat. One question: how do those two terms reconcile? Is it Libertarian by principle, and Democrat by alliance? I'm curious because I have recently begun to call myself a Libertarian, and I find Democrats to be nominally less repugnant than Republicans.
You raise a good point about Occam's Razor. I hold the principle in high esteem. However, by that very principle, it is unlikely that the only three steel-framed buildings in history to collapse due to fire alone were WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, all in one day and in the same location. Also by Occam's Razor, it is plausible that a handful of people on the inside, with no personal feelings of genuine love for Americans, manipulated the system for money and power.
Since Occam's Razor can be used to both substantiate and discredit either of our positions, the principle must be discarded in favor of a much weightier principle: evidence.
Oh how I hate a conspiracy theory. Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't very serious. They make no distinction between accusation and substantiation. That's what makes them "theorists" and not "researchers", which is the term I choose to apply to myself.
Incidentally, I had a short, heated 9/11 debate via email with WCPJ alum John Doe. Like me, he's just as plucky as ever! Anyway, most people I talk to about this do tend to disagree with me. (Masochistically, I tend not to sing to choruses.)
I trust everything is going well with you and WCPJ. That program rocked my world. The speakers and mentors were great; I just wish Helen Thomas was one of the speakers when I was in!
All the best to you,