Thursday, October 23, 2008

9/11 Truthers

Last month, Mike Butler posted the latest installment in his ongoing series defending the 9/11 Truthers. I notice that Turretin Fan took issue with his post. Turretin Fan was then criticized for his failure to furnish suitable evidence to back up his claims.

Speaking for myself, I’m not a 9/11 Truther because I’m just to sceptical be a 9/11 Truther. It demands a high degree of credulity to be a 9/11 Truther, and I can’t muster the requisite level of credulity.

The demand for evidence is a two-way street. Before I could respond to someone like Butler, I’d need to know which 9/11 conspiracy theory he subscribes to. Different versions have different implications.

For example, does he believe that real airplanes flew into real skyscrapers? Or was that staged in a Hollywood movie studio?

If so, then that 9/11 conspiracy theory would require the complicity of the national and international news media, as well as about 8 million New Yorkers.

Assuming he even grants the fact that real airplanes flew into real skyscrapers, were these piloted by Arab terrorists? Or does he have a Universal Soldier scenario in mind, where rogue gov’t officials sent UniSols on a suicide mission? And were their cooling units destroyed to eradicate the evidence?

The difficulty of a large-scale conspiracy is twofold:

i) The more people you tell a secret to, the harder it is to keep your secret a secret. A certain number of coconspirators has to be in the loop to plan and execute the plot.

And, before you approach then, you don’t know in advance which ones will agree to participate. If you approach the wrong person, you’ve tipped your hand too soon. He will report your intentions to the authorities or the news media.

ii) By the same token, many other people must be kept out of the loop.

In addition, what happens when someone like Robert Gates takes over from one of the original conspirators? In his new position, Gates is certainly in a position to find out who did what. Is he part of the gov’t cover up?

What conspiracy theory is Butler advancing? What rogue gov’t officials would have to be involved to pull it off? Are we talking about the president, vice president, secretary of state, secretary of defense, attorney general, NORAD, CENTCOM, NSA, FBI, CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, &c?

Does it start at the top? And how many subordinates must be involved? How far down the ladder does the conspiracy reach? Were the boys at the Weekly Standard in on the plot?

Or does he think that 9/11 was the work of wily, neocon subordinates who kept their superiors in the dark? Did Karl Rove, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz hatch this plot in a sauna somewhere, and manage to hoodwink their superiors? And how did they manage to requisition all the manpower and material needed to pull it off? Are we back to the UniSols?

I would like to see the specific evidence for the specific theory that Butler is advancing. He floats the notion of a “small cadre of rogue government officials” behind the plot.

But would a “small cadre” be sufficient? Where is the concrete evidence? Name names! Who said what to whom?

iii) Another reason I’m not a 9/11 Truther is that Bush has too many enemies, both inside of gov’t and outside of gov’t, to keep the lid on this conspiracy. Many anonymous sources inside gov’t have been leaking information to the NYT and other organs of the news media.

Many of his opponents are spoiling to take him down. If there’s probative evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then why haven’t Congressional Democrats as well as liberal pundits used that to destroy the Bush administration? They have every incentive to do so.

Or does Butler think Congressional Democrats, along with the news media, are all on the take?

Why about earlier critics of the Bush administration like Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke? Why didn’t they produce the goods on Bush?

iv) When Rosie O'Donnell said 9/11 was an inside job, Popular Mechanics shot her down. Are the employees at Popular Mechanics on the secret payroll of rogue gov’t officials?

Why does Noam Chomsky repudiate the 9/11 Truthers? Does Butler think that Chomsky is really a right-wing zealot of the Gordon Liddy stripe who was recruited in college by the CIA (back when Chomsky was a covert member of the John Birth Society) to cultivate his street creed as a radical, anti-American academic so that—when the time came—rogue gov’t officials could roll him out to debunk the 9/11 Truthers? Like Sen. Pardek in the Star Trek episode?

I’m afraid and I’m not gullible enough to believe everything that Butler is prepared to believe.

There are some other problems with his argument.

iv) He cites Pearl Harbor as precedent. But there are two difficulties with that appeal:

a) He’s using one conspiracy theory to prop up another conspiracy theory.

b) The gov’t is not an individual. The gov’t does not have a modus operandi in the same sense that an individual may have a modus operandi. Due to rapid turnover, it isn’t the same set of officials from one generation to another. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that FDR was a conspirator, this doesn’t create any presumption that Bush is a conspirator too.

v) He also says that men like Stalin have gotten away with similar things in the past. But that’s a very loose analogy.

I don’t deny that gov’t officials lie to the public from time to time. But that’s a calculated risk.

Stalin was a despot. He wasn’t assuming much of a personal risk. In his position, he was pretty immune to reprisal—as his opponents found out.

By contrast, Bush, Cheney, and the other conspirators would be taking a tremendous personal risk if their plot were uncovered. What possible benefit would outweigh the cost of exposure?

vi) Butler also makes allegations about Bush and Cheney that he doesn’t bother to document. What’s his source of information? The Cigarette-Smoking Man?

26 comments:

  1. The 9/11 issue is a case study in presuppositions. I believe that Mesrs. Butler and Harris have a set of presuppositions that render unbelievable every possible evidence of the official government story being substantially accurate. Furthermore, as you note, there is no counter story that holds water. Personally I think Mesrs. Butler and Harris are brilliant men. This is their downfall, because to brilliant men the official story lacks any intellectual challenge. The terrorists were identified in the newspapers within a few days. The twentieth (intended) hijacker has been convicted and incarcerated. Bin Ladin has not just admitted but boasted of his role in preparation. The actual mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, has been captured and charged. He has confessed to his role in the event. We even know how the terrorists took over the planes using box cutters. We know how and why the towers WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell as well as why the Pentagon stood up so well to the attack.

    It wasn't the first time Al Quaeda or KSM tried to attack the WTC (in fact, a bombing attempt was made in the 90's). It wasn't the first time someone tried to attack the Pentagon - Obama's pal Ayers and his gang of radicals were at that game decades before.

    These things do not please inquiring minds - even if they are the truth about 9/11. I'm not creative enough, apparently, to find it interesting to spin up theories of Governmental involvement at the highest levels in these sorts of things.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  2. It appears you forgot to actually link to the article itself:

    http://butler-harris.org/archives/367

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 9/11 issue is a case study in presuppositions.

    No it isn't. People who implicitly trust the governemnt and authority have changed their presuppositions about government because they changed their opinion on 911.

    I believe that Mesrs. Butler and Harris have a set of presuppositions that render unbelievable every possible evidence of the official government story being substantially accurate.

    All 911 truthers must have those huh?

    Furthermore, as you note, there is no counter story that holds water.

    The official story doesn't hold any either.

    Personally I think Mesrs. Butler and Harris are brilliant men.

    And now the sword...

    This is their downfall, because to brilliant men the official story lacks any intellectual challenge.

    It is a huuuuuge intellectual challenge to make the facts fit the official conspiracy theory.

    The terrorists were identified in the newspapers within a few days.

    Huh? How? Were they on video boarding the airplanes?

    The twentieth (intended) hijacker has been convicted and incarcerated.

    People are convicted and incarcerated all the time.

    Bin Ladin has not just admitted but boasted of his role in preparation.

    The ridiculously and obviously fraudulent confession tape?

    The actual mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, has been captured and charged. He has confessed to his role in the event.

    Real hard to procure a confession.

    We even know how the terrorists took over the planes using box cutters.

    Yeah, because pilots and co-pilots (most of whom have military experience) give up the (generally???) locked cockpit to Arabs brandishing (horror!) BOXCUTTERS!

    We know how and why the towers WTC 1, 2, and 7 fell as well as why the Pentagon stood up so well to the attack.

    I know how they fell, but I am willing to venture that you don't. There were explosives in the building. It is obvious. Watch the tape over and over and over. The Pentagon was undergoing a conveinent renovation and luckily the plane made an impossible aerial maneuver into that area.

    It wasn't the first time Al Quaeda or KSM tried to attack the WTC (in fact, a bombing attempt was made in the 90's). It wasn't the first time someone tried to attack the Pentagon - Obama's pal Ayers and his gang of radicals were at that game decades before.

    Strange that informants and government officials were involved in the first bombing of the Trade Centers as well.

    These things do not please inquiring minds - even if they are the truth about 9/11.

    They would please, if they were true.

    I'm not creative enough, apparently, to find it interesting to spin up theories of Governmental involvement at the highest levels in these sorts of things.

    Most of us just enjoy poking fun at the official theory and don't waste time spinning up others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Most importantly (and convenient for us "anti-semites") is all the jews arrested on 9-11 acting extremely suspicious (laughing and filming the collapsing towers) who turned out to be Mossad.

    How do you explain dem apples TF?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The terrorists were identified in the newspapers within a few days.

    "Huh? How? Were they on video boarding the airplanes?"

    Actually, yes:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/21/attacks.surveillance.video/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Yeah, because pilots and co-pilots (most of whom have military experience) give up the (generally???) locked cockpit to Arabs brandishing (horror!) BOXCUTTERS!"

    Yes, because back then all pilots were trained to cooperate with hijackers. That was SOP before 9/11 because then it was assumed all hijackers wanted money. All the hijacker had to do was grab a flight attendant and threaten her at the door of the cockpit. The pilot wouldn't even necessarily know what weapon(s) they had.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How 'bout this: you 9/11 truthers are all mentally ill, just like Nazi apologists and Rosie O'Donnell. The only reason anybody should engage your madness is to turn susceptible readers, especially young people, away from infection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Most of us just enjoy poking fun at the official theory and don't waste time spinning up others."

    My point illustrated: it's a pastime not a quest for truth.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know how they fell, but I am willing to venture that you don't. There were explosives in the building. It is obvious. Watch the tape over and over and over.

    I am a structural engineer. I have watched the tapes of the collapse frame by frame. I see nothing that isn't sufficiently explained by gravity.

    http://www.pugiofidei.com/griffin.htm

    ReplyDelete
  10. One of the problems with 9/11 Truthers like Daniel is the way they recite stock objections to the “official” account as if these were irrefutable objections. There are books that refute the stock objections. There are websites that refute the stock objections.

    Notice that Daniel has also failed to tell us which 9/11 conspiracy theory he subscribes to.

    9/11 Truthers are like Salem witch-hunters. They have to denounce more and more culprits to make their conspiracy theory hang together. First they have to implicate all of the gov’t officials and surrogates who were allegedly involved in plotting and executing 9/11. Then, after 9/11, they have to implicate all of the eyewitnesses and investigators, as well as national and international news media, in the grand cover-up. Somehow the liberal establishment, which is ferociously hostile to the Bush administration, is suddenly in the tank for the Bush administration.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When Condi Rice stands before a press conference and says no one ever imagined terrorists would fly a hijacked plane into a building, and then it comes out that the government had war games simulating just such a scenario, Condi was lying.

    When George Bush says(not once but twice), he saw the first plane fly into Tower 1 before he spoke to the children at Booker T. Washington Elementary, and it turns out that there was no videotape available then or live television coverage of the first plane, George was lying, or so monstrously confused he should submit to random drug testing, or at least provide us a copy of the script he's been reading from.

    Government bureaucrats should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise, not the reverse. It seems as though no matter how many deceptions elements within the US government orchestrate, from the creation of the Federal Reserve, to the Lusitania, to the USS Kearney, to Pearl Harbor, to Operation Northwoods, to the Gulf of Tonkin, to the USS Liberty, to 9/11, ever the gullible rise up to believe the 'patriotic' lie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Actually, yes:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/21/attacks.surveillance.video/index.html


    Actually no.

    It shows them going through security checkpoints, not boarding airplanes.

    Yes, because back then all pilots were trained to cooperate with hijackers. That was SOP before 9/11 because then it was assumed all hijackers wanted money. All the hijacker had to do was grab a flight attendant and threaten her at the door of the cockpit. The pilot wouldn't even necessarily know what weapon(s) they had.

    Yeah sure.

    I always follow government rules, especially when my life is at stake.

    How 'bout this: you 9/11 truthers are all mentally ill, just like Nazi apologists and Rosie O'Donnell. The only reason anybody should engage your madness is to turn susceptible readers, especially young people, away from infection.

    Define "mentally ill."

    I make six figures, I'm fairly good lookin', have a sturdy constitution, work out, eat right and despite being a high-school drop out I read voraciously and probably have the equivalent of a masters in history.

    Stop with the ad hom.

    My point illustrated: it's a pastime not a quest for truth.

    What kind of man gets so upset at another man's pastime? :)

    I'll probably never know the truth about that day and neither will you.

    I am a structural engineer. I have watched the tapes of the collapse frame by frame. I see nothing that isn't sufficiently explained by gravity.

    There are lots of structural engineers and high ranking military and political officials that would disagree with you.

    Nevertheless, photocopy your degree and post it and I will consider your opinion.

    One of the problems with 9/11 Truthers like Daniel is the way they recite stock objections to the “official” account as if these were irrefutable objections. There are books that refute the stock objections. There are websites that refute the stock objections.

    There are books that give "undeniable" proof about the existence of aliens and their spacecraft at Roswell. I find them unconvincing as well.

    I think, like Socrates, that the truth will spring up in debate amongst men rather than through dusty pages.

    Notice that Daniel has also failed to tell us which 9/11 conspiracy theory he subscribes to.

    Not the governments theory is all I can say truthfully.

    It isn't my job to come up with a counter-conspiracy. I know enough about it to know people are lying and passing on lies, intentionally or unintentionally.

    9/11 Truthers are like Salem witch-hunters.

    HUH?

    Is this a Reformed website denouncing me as a witch-hunter?

    I can taste the irony! :)

    They have to denounce more and more culprits to make their conspiracy theory hang together.

    Yes. And now I denounce you! Philo-semitic bastard!

    First they have to implicate all of the gov’t officials and surrogates who were allegedly involved in plotting and executing 9/11.

    Check.

    Then, after 9/11, they have to implicate all of the eyewitnesses and investigators, as well as national and international news media, in the grand cover-up.

    Check.

    Somehow the liberal establishment, which is ferociously hostile to the Bush administration, is suddenly in the tank for the Bush administration.

    Huh?

    There is a "liberal" establishment. Sounds like a groundless conspiracy theory to me.

    Wolf Blitzer, former AIPAC lobbyist, works for the communist news network (CNN) which is in the direct employ of the Bilderbergs....

    Look, the world is a messy place.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brutus acted alone!

    There was no conspiracy!

    ReplyDelete
  14. make six figures, I'm fairly good lookin', have a sturdy constitution, work out, eat right and despite being a high-school drop out I read voraciously and probably have the equivalent of a masters in history.

    I doubt that any of these statements are true (except the high school drop-out part; who would lie about that?). Actually, in fact, the total disconnection of the substance of the response to the assertion, "You are all nuts" actually supports the thesis of being nuts. Your non sequiturs support my ad hom.

    9/11 Truthers should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise, not the reverse. It seems as though no matter how many deceptions elements within the US conspiracy-theory community fabricate, from the Illuminati, to Area 51, to the grassy knoll, to militia madness, to the Da Vinci Code, to the innocence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to the vast right-wing conspiracy, to 9/11, ever the gullible rise up to believe the 'conspiracy' lie.

    It's an expression of an essentially hostile, paranoid mind, combined with a masochistic way of being better than other people by imagining one's self to be one of the few enlightened ones, surrounded by dumpkopfs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was too caught up in the delicious irony of his claim to be smart despite being a high school drop out and his demand to "photocopy your degree and post it and I will consider your opinion."

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was too caught up in the delicious irony of his claim to be smart despite being a high school drop out and his demand to "photocopy your degree and post it and I will consider your opinion."

    Caught that huh? :)

    I doubt that any of these statements are true

    You wanna see my last paycheck chump?

    Your non sequiturs support my ad hom.

    So we are all a bunch of assholes arguing on the internet. It is like being in the Special Olympics.

    9/11 Truthers should be assumed to be lying unless proven otherwise, not the reverse.

    So should religious people.

    It seems as though no matter how many deceptions elements within the US conspiracy-theory community fabricate, from the Illuminati, to Area 51, to the grassy knoll, to militia madness, to the Da Vinci Code, to the innocence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to the vast right-wing conspiracy, to 9/11, ever the gullible rise up to believe the 'conspiracy' lie.

    The Illuminati is real, founded by a Bavarian jew, but is just a historical footnote.

    Militia Madness? Metal Mullisha!

    The Rosenbergs were guilty.

    I thought it was a left-wing conspiracy?

    It's an expression of an essentially hostile, paranoid mind, combined with a masochistic way of being better than other people by imagining one's self to be one of the few enlightened ones, surrounded by dumpkopfs.

    Let me guess. You are a structural engineer and a psychologist?

    I don't think I'm better than you, I just have better ideas. :)

    I obviously don't think any of you are dumb or I wouldn't be wasting my time. You can only sharpen yourself by debating people you find to be engaging and more intelligent.

    Why would I waste my time with run-o-the-mill lumpenprole?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Expletives, abbreviated or not, will not be tolerated. Ad hominem invective, as a substitute for reasoned argument, is unacceptable.

    Sorry.

    You can delete my last post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There should be a comma after "paycheck", then a space before "chump".

    Yes, I would like to see your paycheck, please.

    Structural engineer and a psychologist? It's Doc Savage!

    I thought it requires a college degree to be either of those things. But colleges require high school diplomas for admission. But you said...but...

    ReplyDelete
  19. There should be a comma after "paycheck", then a space before "chump".

    Are we really gonna go there?

    People in the South during the first Scotch-Irish migration wave played fast and loose with spelling and punctuation.

    In fact, I think it was spurred Mark Twain, generations removed, to write thusly:

    "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

    Yes, I would like to see your paycheck, please.

    I posted it here but you can't really make it out. Plus, you might need a Facebook account to get to it.

    Got a junk e-mail I could send it to so you can see clearly?

    Structural engineer and a psychologist? It's Doc Savage!

    Who's that? I'm afraid I don't get it.

    I thought it requires a college degree to be either of those things. But colleges require high school diplomas for admission. But you said...but...

    Now I really don't get it. :(

    ReplyDelete
  20. DANIELJ SAID:

    “The Pentagon was undergoing a conveinent renovation.”

    Explain how renovating an old building like the Pentagon is a suspicious activity.

    “And luckily the plane made an impossible aerial maneuver into that area.”

    Are you discounting all of the eyewitnesses to that event, including reporters on the scene? Are they all on the take?

    “Strange that informants and government officials were involved in the first bombing of the Trade Centers as well.”

    You’re using one conspiracy theory to prop up another conspiracy theory.

    “There are lots of structural engineers and high ranking military and political officials that would disagree with you.__Nevertheless, photocopy your degree and post it and I will consider your opinion.”

    Now you’re moving the goalposts—which is a typical dodge on the part of a dishonest disputant.

    This was your original challenge: “There were explosives in the building. It is obvious. Watch the tape over and over and over.”

    You stated that this was “obvious.” All one had to do was watch the tape.

    When Ben takes you up on the challenge, you suddenly shift ground.

    “It isn't my job to come up with a counter-conspiracy.”

    Actually, that is your job. If you’re going to attack the “official” account, then you need to come up with a more plausible alternative. Different 9/11 conspiracy theories carry different evidentiary implications.

    If you think there’s evidence that the “official” account is a cover-up, then you need to weigh that against the evidence required for a conspiracy theory to be credible.

    “There is a ‘liberal’ establishment. Sounds like a groundless conspiracy theory to me.”

    Does that represent your feeble effort to be clever? Liberals don’t make a secret of their liberal opinions or liberal agenda. No conspiracy here. It’s in the public domain.

    Don’t waste our time with your glib, stupid one-liners.

    “Most of us just enjoy poking fun at the official theory and don't waste time spinning up others.”

    We have better things to do with our time than entertain a frivolous opponent. If you can’t argue in good faith, then go away and find yourself a new playmate. We’re not here to humor a bored little brat.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Explain how renovating an old building like the Pentagon is a suspicious activity.

    I don't think renovating an old building is suspicious. I think the fact that Rummy was on the other side of the building combined with the nature of the damage being inconsistent with the alleged aircraft combined with the maneuvers of the airplane is suspicious.

    Are you discounting all of the eyewitnesses to that event, including reporters on the scene? Are they all on the take?

    I don't think so. Eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable and I imagine even more so in such a scary situation.

    You’re using one conspiracy theory to prop up another conspiracy theory.

    It is a matter of public record that one of the Arabs (Emad Salem) involved in the first bombing was an agent provocateur working undercover for the FBI.

    Now you’re moving the goalposts—which is a typical dodge on the part of a dishonest disputant.

    Now I'm dishonest?

    ...When Ben takes you up on the challenge, you suddenly shift ground.

    No I didn't. I stated before I simply find his link (and all the others like it) to be in the wrong.

    Actually, that is your job. If you’re going to attack the “official” account, then you need to come up with a more plausible alternative. Different 9/11 conspiracy theories carry different evidentiary implications.

    I ain't a genius. I am incapable of coming up with a theory but I trust a different set of experts than you do when it comes to the official story.

    If you think there’s evidence that the “official” account is a cover-up, then you need to weigh that against the evidence required for a conspiracy theory to be credible.

    Agreed. And it is definitely a weak spot. I am encourage that a high ranking Italian politician (again conveniently for us anti-Semites) has blamed the Mossad who I am positive was behind some of it.

    Does that represent your feeble effort to be clever?

    Yes, because that is one conspiracy I do believe in. Especially after reading Fire in the Minds of Men by Billington.

    Liberals don’t make a secret of their liberal opinions or liberal agenda. No conspiracy here. It’s in the public domain.

    So are all the experts and high ranking military and civilians that don't believe the official 911 story.

    Don’t waste our time with your glib, stupid one-liners.

    Henceforth, I will not.

    We have better things to do with our time than entertain a frivolous opponent. If you can’t argue in good faith, then go away and find yourself a new playmate. We’re not here to humor a bored little brat.

    Obviously you don't have anything better to do. I don't think I'm frivolous or arguing in bad faith. I was doing my darndest to be deferential to my elders and betters but apparently you see right through that to my real motive which you think is entertainment. I too find the issue serious and enjoy the discussion between thinking Christians on the issue immensely, but since I cause too much trouble I will sit back and watch the more level headed and thoughtful as a troll.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    Best,
    D

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would like to see an explanation for how there can be dozens of witnesses to secondary explosions the morning of 9/11, from occupants to reporters to first responders to people on the street, yet all these undeniable explosions are not studied in the 9/11 Commission Report. And no mention of WTC7. I find that passing strange. It is almost as if the commissioners had a story to tell rather than a crime to investigate. That is the conclusion you will come to if you read The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin.

    I do not hear the Liberal Media Establishment when I watch Faux News. It is pure Neo-con blarney and bluster to somehow justify the murder, rape, and pillage of Iraq. How can an obvious old-fashioned land and power grab be justified by Christians? Where is the moral outrage at the lies, the corporate profiteering, the torture? It is pathetic to hear Christians talk like trained parrots when they complain about the Liberal media. The Left-Right debate is a dog and pony show, or pro-wrestling, where the combatants work from a script to please and excite the sheeple.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DPW SAID:

    “I would like to see an explanation for how there can be dozens of witnesses to secondary explosions the morning of 9/11, from occupants to reporters to first responders to people on the street, yet all these undeniable explosions are not studied in the 9/11 Commission Report. And no mention of WTC7. I find that passing strange. It is almost as if the commissioners had a story to tell rather than a crime to investigate.”

    The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan Commission. It included political partisans who are naturally hostile to the Bush administration. So what incentive would they have to cover for the Bush administration?

    The fact that their report may be flawed is hardly evidence of a gov’t conspiracy.

    “I do not hear the Liberal Media Establishment when I watch Faux News. It is pure Neo-con blarney and bluster to somehow justify the murder, rape, and pillage of Iraq. How can an obvious old-fashioned land and power grab be justified by Christians? Where is the moral outrage at the lies, the corporate profiteering, the torture? It is pathetic to hear Christians talk like trained parrots when they complain about the Liberal media. The Left-Right debate is a dog and pony show, or pro-wrestling, where the combatants work from a script to please and excite the sheeple.”

    You’re using a string of defamatory adjectives and question-begging assertions as a substitute for reasoned argument. You yourself are clearly reading from a script, like a trained parrot.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DANIELJ SAID:

    “Now I'm dishonest?”

    Yes, that’s right.

    “No I didn't. I stated before I simply find his link (and all the others like it) to be in the wrong. “

    Which was unresponsive to the terms of your original challenge.

    On a final note, here’s an example of something you posted over at your own blog. It puts your pious protestations in a very revealing light:

    The Lyrics of an Angry White Man

    Ramallah is a synthesis of all that is good in punk/hardcore music and happens to be my favorite band.

    Here are some of the most powerful lyrics ever penned in the vein of George Garrett cum a drunk John Lennon meets an American Psycho.

    *****************************************

    It's time to light the fuse.
    Violence is better than the CULT OF SILENCE

    I'd love to detonate a car bomb at the doors of your precious MTV,
    and put some sarin gas in the central A.C. at the V.M.A.'s
    and watch those beautiful faces turn ashen gray.

    I'd love to rape a Hilton sister or kill an FM show director

    and piss on the illusions that you hold so dear

    http://tomorrowinvinland.blogspot.com/2008/03/lyrics-of-angry-white-man.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are lots of structural engineers and high ranking military and political officials that would disagree with you.

    There are very few structural engineers who disagree with me. I've looked over the signatories of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. First off, architects generally don't know squat about structural engineering, as any structural engineer will tell you. So, they have no special competence to evaluate the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement. Second, the number of engineers on the list looks to be around 300: miniscule compared with the number of engineers in America. Third, Most of the engineers on that list have degrees in unrelated or loosely related fields such as electrical, chemical, mechanical, environmental, and software engineering. AE911Truth even tries to pass surveyors off as as having professional competence on structural issues. The number of engineers with actual professional competence in structures on that list is probably in the dozens. Fourth, of those few, fewer still have master's degrees and not a single one has a doctorate.

    Nevertheless, photocopy your degree and post it and I will consider your opinion.

    I'm not going to go to the trouble, but I can point you to the latest newsletter of the PSU department of Architectural Engineering, which lists me as an alumnus on page 4:

    http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/newsletters/newsletter/Fa08/Fa08.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  26. Welcome to our wow Gold and store. We are specilized, professional and reliable website for selling and service. By the wow power leveling same token,we offer the best WoW service for our long-term and loyal customers You will find the benefits and powerleveling value we created different from other sites. As to most people, they are unwilling to spend most of the time grinding money for mounts or repair when they can purchase what they are badly need. The only way is to look for the best place to wow powerleveling buy cheap WOW gold. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our wow gold delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal customers who really appreciate our service.

    ReplyDelete