Monday, 3 August 2009

WTC7 - Rebutting Troofer Claims

Small, inconsequential fires?????























That isn't a small inconsequential fire.

And neither is this:
















Or this:















Or this:





























So there were no fires, and nobody expected it to collapse?

Firehouse: ......... we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 - did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about.

LINK
Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7...... Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
--------------------------------------

Here's a picture showing how "impossible" it was that debris from WTC1 could have damaged WTC7. (WTC1 is the large grey tower on the left, WTC7 is the much smaller coppery building in the centre.)

































WTC7 was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall.

Edited to add:

WTC6, the building inbetween WTC1 and WTC7 shows clear and severe damage: it seems undeniable that the evidence suggests WTC1 debris fell onto WTC6 and WTC7. Even the building behind WTC7 was damaged by falling debris. In such circumstances, faced with such evidence, there seems nothing extraordinary about WTC7 being damaged by falling debris. Significant debris fell beyond WTC7 - in a direct line from the towers, with WTC7 inbetween.

The following is a picture from North of WTC1 - we're looking South and down onto the rubble of what remains of WTC7. The top of the picture faces Northwards and is near the Twin Tower location. The bottom of this image was furthest away from WTC1+2, the Twin Towers. WTC1 would have been about centre-right - at the top of the picture, out of view. The white building at centre-bottom was further away from the twin towers than WTC7, the remains of which are directly above it in the picture - the rubblepile of WTC7 is in the centre of the picture. The white building at bottom-centre is damaged ie debris from WTC1 fell beyond WTC7. Plus, WTC7 (rubble in the centre) lies between the damaged white building (bottom, South) and the position of WTC1 (top, North). It is a straight line from the damaged white building to where WTC1 had stood and WTC7 lies directly in-between. The buildings at the top of the picture (North) were closer to WTC1, and were severely damaged - though they did not 'collapse.' They were however, not of the same height or type of construction as WTC7.






















There is no absolute definitive proof that WTC7 collapsed because of debris and fire - but realistically there never could be such evidence. The absence of such irrefutable and uncontestable proof of ewhat happened to WTC7 provides sufficient space for conspiracism to exploit: it's into such crannies conspiracism retreats. Just as Christianity once retreated from the most easily provable realms of science and over into metaphysics, so 911 conspiracism inevitably retreats into the corners science and rationalism can't go - like the impossibility of having absolute irrefutable proof of....well...anything at all. So it's always a matter of weighing evidence, and the evidence clearly points to a perfectly plausible conclusion that WTC7 was hit by debris, and did suffer fires.

There is absolutely zero positive evidence to sustain any thesis about the causes of WTC7's subsequent collapse other than the obvious - it collapsed because of the attacks ie falling debris from twin towers and fire - there was no "demolition".

One of the reasons I began to accept "the most obvious" explanation for 911 (with caveats) was because the thing that has become known as "911 Truth" was doing such an appalling job at turning up any evidence.

Partly out of alarm at the sort of characters I found populating 911 Truth (in a word, nazis) and partly out of simple interest, I began to reassess the "evidence" of 911, and retraced my footsteps, only this time armed with some hindsight, more resources, and a little more knowledge about the people involved in "the movement".

I was unimpressed with the evidence - I found there wasn't any, really. Or with the methods. Questions, that's all they have - and not even those are all honest because they already have been answered. Either that or there simply is no reasonable possibility of ever getting an absolute irrefutable answer. Such asking of questions, when they've been investigated and answered, or when there simply is no possible way of definitively answering beyond ALL measure of doubt - is a deceit. It's a very similar - nay identical deceit to that which holocaust deniers engage in. I'm no longer surprised to find a convergence of such interests and methods, and that's (part) of why I started calling it 911 Troof - because it looks a bit like truth, but isn't.

I forget the guy's name, and of his method, but the upshot being that the Holocaust is not proven by any single thing - rather it is millions upon millions of individual facts and individual pieces of evidence....which accumulate into an undeniable body of evidence.

Ask questions! - but to pretend there's not already been good answers, when there has, is a deceit. It's a rhetorical device of holocaust denial - and one that features in "911 Troof". The point is how you assess the available evidence - and what it consists of - not whether you have absolute undeniable proof of any particular event. Absolute proof of anything at all is almost always unavailable.

Incidentally, I found Shermer's article criticising 911 quite accurate, and his allusion to the similarities of holocaust denial was correct. What he seemed to miss though, was the reasons why they're so similar : it's because the same people (and ideas) are pursuing both.

Was WTC7 hit by debris, does the firefighters' testimony suggest there were significant fires, did they expect it to suffer structural collapse? Were jews gassed at auschwitz, was there a final solution, what does 'special treatment mean'? Do you have absolute irrefutable proof WTC7 collapsed because of the debris damage, its atrium design, the fires, the fuel system? Do you have absolute irrefutable proof that the Krema at Auschwitz were blah blah blah.... The similarities in method are remarkable. It's about the evidence.

Another example is how troofers/holocaust deniers will jump through a hoop to exaggerate the horrendous implications of some relatively obscure, and vague suggestion by some democratically elected and liberal representative (Holdren?).....whilst suggesting the Wannsee conference, "the final solution" and the Auschwitz krema needn't necessarily mean the holocaust happened. You don't have a working krema with already-gassed jews in it, do you? You don't have an actual video of the steel structure in WTC7 screaming "Help, I'm suffering structural failure due to the fires, caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers, and it's all the fault of Osama Bin Laden!!!!!!!!"

Another example would be the way Poplawski's engagement with the usual paranoid, anti-semitic fantasies of the far-right and his visiting of prisonplanet, stormfront and whatever are "meaningless" (to the far-right), whereas the same people will often believe that simply being a jew, regardless of one's actual beliefs, makes one highly 'suspect' at least, and often simply a "traitor", "guilty", "an enemy" - whatever. Things that mean something are discarded, irrelevancies gain an exaggerated importance.

Such double standards are rife through "911 Troof" - and in Holocaust denial. Cherry-picking of evidence, etc etc - the logical and methodological fallacies are all there. Why did Shermer miss the fact the same people are operating extensively through both "movements"? Why did Shermer, and 911 Troof(!) miss the fact these movements were converging and are now difficult, if not impossible, to separate? Why doesn't 911 Troof address the issue?!? If it wanted to be taken seriously it should have - it didn't - and still hasn't. It can't?

So, it really shouldn't be a surprise to these movements have converged, because the same people are operating in both.

On another note - throughout my engagement with 911 Troof I have often been asked - "Are you Jewish?". I've never been asked if I'm Turkish. Or Sri Lankan. Or Chechen. Or .... anything.
-------------------
As to the controlled demolition idea - some videos. LISTEN to the sound? I've *never* come across a 911 video with anything like this sound present. And of course, you could add it in easily enough. I wonder what the noise of charges sufficient to compromise the Twin Towers would have sounded like? (Ah but they used super-de-doopy nano-thermite! Hmmmm......here we go again.....into the dark corners....)

http://tinyurl.com/oufj3
http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

The first one features in Loose Change.....but they don't play the audio. Hmmm.

42 comments:

Larry said...

Hey moron, the smoke in those pics i coming from WTC 5 and 6, NOT 7. I have pictures that actually show the smoke pouring from the roofs of 5 and 6 and since the smoke is rising up in front of 7, makes it appear as if they might be coming from 7, but its NOT. WTC 5 was FULLY ablaze, and when firefighters put out the fires at WTC 5, the smoke began to billow up from it and makes it look like they are coming from building 7. Ask yourself----where is the FIRE in those pics at WTC 7?? There IS none. You, like many, have been fooled.

Larry said...

They KNEW it would collapse? Since a building had NEVER before collapsed because of fire, how would they know that??? What was the precedent for it?????

Larry said...

You can CLEARLY see in the first 2 pics posted that the smoke is coming from the remains of building 5 and 6. Plus, I forget what building that is beside WTC 7--its either a post office or the Verizon building, but isnt it interesting that that building is CLOSER to where the twin towers stood and WTC 7 is just a tad farther away, and yet THAT got hit by more debris than the closer building? And yet look at the building beside WTC 7---completely untouched, not damaged and not on fire!

Can you explain the immaculate condition of the building right beside WTC 7 in your pictures? That building was CLOSER to the towers!

the_last_name_left said...

No Larry. Look at picture one, and read the words of the firemen:

It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it.

and as for "how did they know it was going to collapse?"

Read the words of firefighters who were there?

we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

How would they know it was gonna collapse?! They were there LArry!!! But how in hell would you know it couldn't have done? Sheesh.

You - like your publisher - are accusing the firefighters of being liars, guilty of manslaughter, and of being "in" on a treasonous conspiracy to kill 000s of people.

And you believe you can tell the facts by reading the internet better than experienced fire-fighters and the NY firechiefs WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE.

And you have no evidence on which to base your claims - only your FAITH that "it cannot be so".

Well, good for you, Larry - but there's no evidence for it. Simple.

If there is evidence for what you believe then where is it? Nowhere. Not a bit of evidence in 8 years. Even if you were right, you have no evidence to support what you believe.

So why do you believe it? Because you're committed to that belief - regardless of the complete absence of any evidence.

You're breaking with scientific method - you're working back to front. To sustain your belief you are forced to reject all the counter evidence - which does exist - and of which there is a huge amount. All in favour of your faith in a thesis for which there is no evidence.

Amusingly, having rejected scientific method, the testimony of experts, firefighters, architects etc - you'll still claim the "science" is on your side, the "facts" support your view, there were no fires, no damage etc etc etc.

It's bizarre. Look at the pictures - read the testimony.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)


Do I believe Nigro or you? Hmm - tough choice? Not.

socrates said...

The problem with debunking is that it can become as dogmatic as any belief system. You may think you're doing a service here TLNL, but to be honest, your blog is getting gummed up with spam. No one wants to read this guy or Rivero or any other wingnut like Maynard. You had a good thing going here, but you seem to be losing the focus. Yeah, you can act like you are all for free speech, but folks have the right to not read any of it.

Do I want to read you debunking alternative theories of what happened on September 11th? No way or at least not anymore. I mentioned the put options and perhaps the pristine passport in another comment section. I know I mentioned that Bin Laden has probably been dead for years due to kidney damage. You had no responses to any of that.

You are evoking science as being on your side. Yet you do not explain how cirrus aviaticus forms in 10% relative humidity. It's all engine exhaust and normal contrails to you. Just because you say there was nothing fishy about Sept. 11th or that that there is no secretive weather modification doesn't mean anything. I'm also disappointed you never have anything harsh to say about the Israeli government's actions towards the Palestinians. Did you get too close to a cookie cutter like Larry? You are doing a disservice to all your fine work on Rivero, Jones, Maynard, Bank Index, et al when you start sounding like any other run of the mill JREF debunker cultist.

You say that the Kimberlin story is murky, but here you are filling up your pages with wingnut noise. You're actually providing the disinfo side the chance to seem more credible than they are. You are enabling this Larry Simons bore. It's surprising you'd let your website degrade into this, just some other website posting the same predictable stuff about Sept. 11th. Closed-minded debunkers and crazy believers can share the blame for why the internet stinks.

This blog got murky.

the_last_name_left said...

S: The problem with debunking is that it can become as dogmatic as any belief system.

I'm dogmatic that 2+2=4. I'm dogmatic about my socialism too. I don't apologise for that.

S: your blog is getting gummed up with spam.

I know. I'm thinking I'll let Larry have his say, then clear up the mess he's made and put it all in one place.

Responsibility for Larry's input lies with Larry.

S: Yeah, you can act like you are all for free speech, but folks have the right to not read any of it.

For sure. There is a point to this though - an illustration of the methods of Troofers, the insults, the rejection of evidence, the involvement with the far-right (Larry gets published at Prisonplanet, links to AFP) but fails to address the import of it.

And I'm quite happy to run through the arguments over 911. I don't mind people having a different opinion to mine, but how people reach their opinions - the sources they use - their treatment of evidence, or disregard of it - is of interest to me, and is relevant to the thrust of this blog.

S: Do I want to read you debunking alternative theories of what happened on September 11th? No way or at least not anymore.

Fair enough.

S: I mentioned the put options and perhaps the pristine passport in another comment section. I know I mentioned that Bin Laden has probably been dead for years due to kidney damage. You had no responses to any of that.

Well, we can talk about it if you like? You seem to be complaining that I didn't pursue the topic then, but also complaining I am pursuing the topic with Larry now?

Bin Laden may very well be dead - I don't see how it matters much: he only ever was a figurehead, AQ is more than UBL. I had a Muslim friend who very much believed in AQ and what it stands for. UBL's state of health is irrelevant to my friends beliefs. AQ exists for him - so it exists.

The passport? Yes, it sounds ludicrous. but who knows? it wouldn't be the only remarkable event ever to have happened. Like I say - I'm happy to have questions raised - I have no problem with it. But raised questions are just that - questions. If there's no answer - then what can one say about it?
Not much.

The put options? What ever came of it? Nothing. What is the sum total of the evidence now, 8 years later? If you want to pursue it, be my guest.

the_last_name_left said...

[cont]

S: Yet you do not explain how cirrus aviaticus forms in 10% relative humidity. It's all engine exhaust and normal contrails to you.

I have absolutely no idea, Socrates. It's not something I know anything about. I don't see anything in the whole chemtrails thing, and i have no expertise or knowledge or experience to contribute to it. Other than I have never seen anything to suggest chemtrails are "real".

I'm content for us to disagree on it - I know it's an important subject to you - it isn't to me.

S: Just because you say there was nothing fishy about Sept. 11th....

No - I say there is no positive evidence for anything other than the obvious - for which there is huge amounts of evidence. By all means ask questions - search for some good evidence. IMO there's nothing, not even after 8 years. And most of what counts as "troofer" evidence has been distilled from the ranks of the distorters and manipulators and exaggerators populating the far-right, who have readily explainable motives for what they say: undermining government, attacking jews, encouraging distrust of liberal institutions, avoiding class analysis, avoiding critique of capitalism etc.

S: I'm also disappointed you never have anything harsh to say about the Israeli government's actions towards the Palestinians.

I also don't have anything harsh about Sri Lankan army attacking Tamil Tigers. Or the Turks attacking Kurds. Why not mention them if I'm supposed to mention Israel? Why Israel? I've no more or less reason to mention them than Sri Lanka, Turkey, Chechnya, Congo, Zimbabwe whatever.

You are doing a disservice to all your fine work on Rivero, Jones, Maynard, Bank Index, et al when you start sounding like any other run of the mill JREF debunker cultist.

I don't consider rationalism as a cult. :)

You say that the Kimberlin story is murky, but here you are filling up your pages with wingnut noise.

Ummm - opposing it, surely?

S: You are enabling this Larry Simons bore. It's surprising you'd let your website degrade into this, just some other website posting the same predictable stuff about Sept. 11th.

Enabling him? Well, what he does is his responsibility. I already said I shan't allow him to spam all the threads, and that I may well tidy the place up and put his rubbish all in one place. There's no rush.

S: This blog got murky.

I disagree, but....you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

I think Larry is making a mess, but, there we are.....it has a relevance and serves the wider purpose of the blog.

Exposing how Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com serves to promote fascism, white nationalism, neo-nazism etc and how 911 Troof has become a fascist mouthpiece.

Larry writes for Prisonplanet - Larry links to americanfreepress - Larry authored a story about Poplawski attempting to distance his views from those of Alex Jones and Larry himself.

Larry said...

I noticed that my posts werent addressed at ALL. I assume that wasnt on purpose. When I crush people with facts, their last option is just to ignore, and thats the staged you have reached, the ignore stage.

Hey Socrates, did you even READ any of our debate? You didnt care I asked him to send me proof of a universal collapse of a building and asked him specifically NOT to send me links of PARTIAL collapses and he did JUST that---sent me a link (which didnt even work) of the McCormick Center--which was a partial collapse and NOT a universal one. So I actually posted a link FOR HIM showing th actual picture of the building.

Didnt care about that huh? Didnt care that he made claim after claim that he FAILED to prove? Guess all that means nothing to assholes like you. Didnt care that he DENIED I answered hi questions over and over when I had?

the_last_name_left said...

So tell me, Larry - what exactly is it that you have "proven"?

That you're an arsehole? Well, we knew that anyway........

But what have you proven? What have you even provided positive evidence of, exactly? Nothing.

Larry said...

"So tell me, Larry - what exactly is it that you have "proven"?"

That you have IGNORED the folloing points of mine TWICE now:

""The links you gave under the McCormick Center crap are invalid. One takes you to a page talking about the WTC, the other says "page not found"---lol. That ALONE tells me all you did was look at some site, found the link and copied and pasted it WITHOUT actually looking at it. Why is the page not there TURD? Huh????"

"Notice, it is NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE, the outer walls are STILL in tact as well as parts of the roof. This was just a massive roof cave in, NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE. Care to be schooled anymore???? By now, your 3 readers have probably abandoned you because I have kicked your ass with facts.

The hilarious thing about you citing the McCormick Center as a comparison is when you earlier told me:

"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."

And yet you cite the McCormick Center---which was "not the same HEIGHT, not the same DESIGN and not the same POSITION" as WTC 7. Yet, that didnt deter YOU from using it as an example to make your point. BUT, since it was NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE like WTC 7, it was a SHITTY example."

"You said:

"Depends what you mean. Are you denying that in the 1970s the NY Chief of Fire said the modern (state-of-the-art?) buildings going up were death traps and that a tragedy was waiting to happen?"

So what if he said in the 1970's????? WTC 7 was built in 1987!!!!!!!!!! DUMBFUCK! Why would a quote from a fire chief referring to buildings built in the 1970's have any bearing on a building built in 1987??????????"

the_last_name_left said...

TLNL:"So tell me, Larry - what exactly is it that you have "proven"?"

Larry: That you have IGNORED the folloing points of mine TWICE now
--------------------

See - you've clearly nothing to say about 911. You can't answer the question "What have you proven about 911?"

That's why I ignore you....

So, are you an architect or someone with relevant expertise, Larry? You won't even answer the question. I've addressed your questions......so, come on? Fezz up your relevant expertise?

You don't have any, do you?

socrates said...

The problem is you're not being logical, TLNL. If Western corporate figures made crazy money with foreknowledge of Sept. 11th, that throws your whole Al Queda did it alone into the trash. Did Al Quaeda and Bin Laden take credit for the event? Did they do so right away? Don't terrorists take credit for such heinous activities? Why else commit such crimes? Isn't terrorism some kind of warped carrot and stick approach? That if the "oppressor" stops oppressing, there will be no terrorism?

There were other strange things about Sept. 11th. There was the strange story of the lady working for the motor registry in New Jersey. The building collapses did look like they were the result of controlled demolition. How do you explain the Pentagon crash? How does a big plane fly so close to the ground going 500 mph? There's much more, but this isn't a subject I went into too heavily. I admit this has been mostly because of your and others' good points about right woos left. But it's also the closed-minded debunkers who spam as much as the other side, if not worse. One needn't read dirtrags from the likes of Carto, Rense, and Rivero. But when the debunker cultists showed up at "progressive" blogs, it was hard to avoid them.

As for Israel, that is a major topic involved with your critiques of right wing disinfo merchants. To not attack Israel makes it appear you have a dog in the hunt.

By admitting that you have nothing to say about Israel, it is as if you are downplaying their human rights violations against the Palestinians.

TLNL: "undermining government, attacking jews, encouraging distrust of liberal institutions, avoiding class analysis, avoiding critique of capitalism etc."

Yes, all good points, but I think you're missing a few things that would make you a better blogger.

1) You need to critique Israel's actions towards the Palestinians. It may not be a subject that intrigues you. But by going after the disinfo which attacks Jews via Middle Eastern politics, your silence almost condones what has been going on there.

2) Why shouldn't there be distrust of liberal institutions? Echelon must be fairly close to where you are. It is the most "liberal" institutions who promote the military-industrial complex. They are the ones who have stripped us of basic civil liberties.

3) I agree with you on the last point. There is no class analysis. If anything, there is still the undertone that America is the greatest country ever. The wingnut disinfo is all about turning Bush and Cheney into anomalies.

I didn't want to bring weather modification into this, but it is one topic which shows your unwillingness to partake even a basic interest in. I have shown that nearly all of the info coming out of chemtrail forums and websites is rubbish. Yet, I have also proven that the activities have nothing to do with commercial aircraft. If one googles Wyoming atmospheric soundings, they will find a website giving all the upper atmospheric data for their closest weather stations. On many occasions lately, during so-called contrail outbreaks, the relative humidity in my area has been around 10%. Persistent contrails need around 60-70% RH. There could not have been enough of a dry bias in the balloons to account for such a low reading. You want people to believe in your science in regards to Sept. 11th. Yet, when it comes to the weather modification controversy, it's as if you have put your hands over your ears, just as you have done with Brett Kimberlin. I guess I should be grateful that you have stopped ridiculing the topic and perhaps leaving it more as an enigma. But I don't like how you glorify science for your debunking, yet when it comes to basic atmospheric science, you don't have a clue. It's also very unsettling that you would link to the JREF website.


Larry sounds like he needs counseling. I saw how he asked for my comment on buildings falling due to fire. Yet then he called me an asshole. No one is gonna respond to that type of verbal abuse.

{continued}

socrates said...

Saying Willis Carto, Rivero, Maynard, Tinoire, Piper Collins, Mullins, and many others are focked up, is like saying Lady Di was hot. It's self-evident through the eyes. TLNL, you do a fine job going after obviously deranged right wing conspiracy theorists. However, you seem to be lacking when it comes to showing how such bullshite has infiltrated the left-o-sphere. I gift-wrapped you Tinoire, Andy Stephenson and others. But perhaps that is too 'murky' for you. I came up with proof that Rivero worked for McDonnell Douglas. Not much response to that. I've also related to you some stuff on Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and his ties to the CIA. There's much more to all this than your one angle is all I'm saying.

Larry said...

Socrates, I call them like I see them. I know how The Turd will respond to the Pentagon crash. He will just regurgitate the already debunked lies of Popular Mechancis.

Lets talk about the Pentagon, shall we Turd? Do you even want to tackle this with me?

Larry said...

Socrates, CLEARLY you have seen how The Turd has twisted my words, ignored, dodged and deflected points Ive made and even DENIED I answered him over and over when I HAD like 4 times, right? You MUST have seen how he omits addressing certain points I nail him on and how he tries to avoid addressing things by mere repetition, right? And not to mention the responses he gives that basically make no sense---youve witnessed this right?

Why would a person who claims to know the truth resort to lies, deflection, ignoring, twisting of words, spin and repetition?

the_last_name_left said...

S: If Western corporate figures made crazy money with foreknowledge of Sept. 11th, that throws your whole Al Queda did it alone into the trash.

"IF" we could prove foreknowledge. and "IF" we could prove Western corporate figures made crazy money out if it......it still wouldn't mean AQ weren't involved. It would still only prove what it would prove - and that'd be "if" we could prove it.

That has not been done.

I mean come on - every day Western corporate figures were making crazy money.....that's what they do. "IF" there were good evidence that they even made crazy money on 911, with mad "PUT" options on the plane companies for instance, as was often claimed, what would that "prove" exactly? It would take more work to prove it wasn't just a coincidence - (stock traders are always involved in such deals) - and that would require real positive evidence of foreknowledge......and lordy knows what else.

The point is - we do not have that evidence. All well and good to suggest perps have very good reasons for "destroying evidence".......but why do they have very good reasons for destroying evidence? Because without evidence there's nothing to go on.........

And that's the position we're in - no evidence.

If there IS evidence - what is it? About the PUT options on UA and AA whatever - what is the sum of the evidence about that now? What does it amount to?

Saying "IF" we had such evidence isn't good enough - we have to have the evidence itself - not just posit that it might exist.

No good criticising Bushco for detention without trial, and Guantanamo, and trial without representation and due process.......if we also reject the principles of requiring evidence ourselves, and assessing it fairly.

It's the only sure route we have to a remotely accurate view of 911, and everything else.

If there were some good evidence, I don't doubt it would gain traction. But where is it?

the_last_name_left said...

Some people end up mocking me over this, claiming "Yeah, well - they DESTROYED the evidence - it's all locked away....dumbass!"

But I just have to ask how they know what the locked-away evidence says.

That just shows how much people are working backwards.... "There was a govt conspiracy....now where's the evidence? Can't find stuff that proves there was a govt conspiracy.....so.....Eureka! - they must have locked it away or destroyed it!"

Where IS the evidence? What does it amount to? My own view is that it amounts to almost nothing at all. Of course there's plenty of questions......but....there is about any social event especially complex ones.

I can honestly say I've checked the "evidence" for 911 conspiracy for years.....and I'm really not persuaded by it.

The evidence has become less convincing, not more. Indeed, it's the absence of good evidence which led to a vacuum, into which (far-right) posturing and ideology has flowed.

There seems no doubt that parts of US Govt were aware/fearful of an impending attack. Does that mean they had "foreknowledge" in the sense conspiracists mean - or does it just mean they were negligent in not realising it was actually very serious?

And if they had foreknowledge (of whichever sort) - of what exactly did they have foreknowledge of? That AQ were planning an attack? Or that parts of US govt were planning an attack?

All the evidence of "foreknowledge" I know points to concerns about, and warnings about an attack by Al Qaeda.

Bushco attempted to suppress such evidence - but it's all evidence which points to AL Qaeda! Why suppress evidence which points to Al Qaeda?

It shows their negligence - but it's a theme that's never really been pursued - at least not in 911 conspiracism? Seems to me we've been diverted away from Bushco negligence.

Bushco suppressed good evidence "AQ" were responsible......all those warnings.....right?

The warnings speak of OBL/AQ and sometimes even airplanes, yes? They don't warn the CIA or PNAC are about to launch attacks.

Who has got off the hook if it's as simple as that? Bushco.

From such a perspective, the notion "the govt did it" (or "the cabal" did it) is a diversion....

Why wasn't the fact Bushco received warnings about AQ (and seemingly proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it) enough to generate the uproar that 911 conspiracy seeks to when it suggests pods on WTC plane, fake planes, faked phone calls etc etc etc?

Because we were all looking at crappy videos for a podplane and trying to prove some grand conspiracy?

the_last_name_left said...

S: Did Al Quaeda and Bin Laden take credit for the event? Did they do so right away? Don't terrorists take credit for such heinous activities? Why else commit such crimes?

I can see why people might not wish to claim responsibility for an atrocity.

Conspiracism has no problem with the idea that, say, PNAC were responsible and did everything they could to avoid having to admit responsibility.

If Dick Cheney was really the figure behind it all, why doesn't he have to claim responsibility as you suggest Al Qaeda "must"?

I know from my own experience that what I'd call "radical islamists" believe it was Al Qaeda....whether they claimed it or not. AQ have certainly at least implied they were responsible several times. Does claiming responsibility mean it's true? No.

My point is that if the same level of evidence asked of for "the official line" is applied to any competing thesis, there's nothing. There certainly isn't the evidence to claim "the government did it" - or whatever.

If "the official story" and evidence for it isn't sufficient to prove who was on the planes, or who they were acting for, how come the conspiracists know?

Scepticism cuts both ways?

S: Pentagon crash? How does a big plane fly so close to the ground going 500 mph?

I don't mean to be facetious, but when they crash at 500mph that's pretty close to the ground? At least just before they crash. The purported pentagon "video" is pretty hokey though - it is very hard to believe a large jetliner could be flown at the pentagon like that - it seems a level approach. My credulity is stretched by that, and I remember going through all the pictures I could find of missiles and boeings to see if I could match them.

But what of it? What positive evidence is there for an alternative explanation? There's good testimony from people involved at pentagon clearup speaking of seeing people still in their aircraft seats, etc. Well........no matter the video looks "hokey"......how did those people get in there, how did all the body parts get in there, etc etc.

There's eyewitness testimony....and other physical evidence. What positive evidence is there for any alternative explanation? Nothing. Oh - a video that we believe "looks hokey". That's it?

the_last_name_left said...

As for Israel, that is a major topic involved with your critiques of right wing disinfo merchants. To not attack Israel makes it appear you have a dog in the hunt.

Why don't I have a dog in the hunt in Turkey, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Congo?

S: By admitting that you have nothing to say about Israel, it is as if you are downplaying their human rights violations against the Palestinians.

But I'm not downplaying the human rights violations in Darfur - where far, far more people have died? Or in Sri Lanka - where far, far more people have died?

Getting into such issue as israel palestine will most certainly derail the blog. Why bother to open such a can of worms? It isn't a topic lacking discussion - it's everywhere. I don't feel a need to contribute to it - not here, and certainly not at the moment, at least.

Personally I resent how the topic is always dragged centre stage - as if no-one and nowhere else matters.

My own view is I oppose ALL borders - and I don't give a fig about "race". I don't have to make a special effort to prove it by condemning Israel. Why Israel and not Turkey, Darfur, Sri Lanka Congo, whatever?

I haven't got on one of my favourite hobbyhorse about 16,000 children dying every day from preventable malnutrition. So I'm "endorsing" starving children to death, right?

S:1) You need to critique Israel's actions towards the Palestinians. It may not be a subject that intrigues you. But by going after the disinfo which attacks Jews via Middle Eastern politics, your silence almost condones what has been going on there.

I don't think so at all. Am I condoning hunting of Rhino to extinction because I haven't mentioned it?

the_last_name_left said...

2) Why shouldn't there be distrust of liberal institutions?

Fair enough - but not when it's done with arguments such as "democracy doesn't work!". The undermining of Weimar was crucial for Nazism to reach the heights of state-power - and as such the de-legitimisation of liberal institutions was critical.

That's one of the things about the electronic voting broohaha that concerned me - that it was serving to undermine faith in democracy. Maybe that's what Kimberlin's goal was - or just the function he served? To weaken peoples' faith in democracy - the ballot?

I remember being concerned because in the depths of Bushdom you could imagine a sweeping revolt against Bush coming in future elections. But what if no-one any longer believed in voting or its results? Who would that serve - and where would it leave us?

I don't doubt that the far-right were working to exploit the legitimate issues raised about electronic voting for exactly that purpose. Maybe that was Kimberlin's purpose - or maybe he was just being used for that reason.

S: I didn't want to bring weather modification into this, but it is one topic which shows your unwillingness to partake even a basic interest in.

No - there's loads of things I'm not interested in. That just happens to be one of them.

Why would I choose to seek to antagonise you over something I'm just not interested in? I know you are interested in it - that's fine by me.

the_last_name_left said...

S: You want people to believe in your science in regards to Sept. 11th. Yet, when it comes to the weather modification controversy, it's as if you have put your hands over your ears, just as you have done with Brett Kimberlin.

Well, I'm just not particularly interested in weather modification, chemtrails, whatever. My interest is fascism, socialism, 2nd World War, Russia, whatever - and I restrict myself to what I know a little about - and what I'm interested in. There's already insufficient time to explore that - I can't look into everything.

S: I don't like how you glorify science for your debunking, yet when it comes to basic atmospheric science, you don't have a clue.

Well, I don't have a clue - what can I say about it? :)

S: It's also very unsettling that you would link to the JREF website.

Why?

S: However, you seem to be lacking when it comes to showing how such bullshite has infiltrated the left-o-sphere.

Again - I just don't know much about it. I haven't found forums where everyone agrees with me to be that stimulating....so I've been more engaged with places that disagree. hence my gravitation to what turns out to be rabid far-right places - in a spirit of opposition, of course.

I don't believe I have anything much to add to left-wing ideology and philosophy, ethics whatever. There's people far more talented and smart than me at it......and being a nodding dog gets boring - for me at least.

My time amongst the far-right (in opposition) has increased my awareness of how anti-semitism can appear in the left too. So it has been constructive on that score, imo. But I really haven't spent much time in "left-o-sphere", no. It's all "liberal" rather than left, as such, anyway, isn't it? That's been my experience....so hardly very captivating imo.

S: I came up with proof that Rivero worked for McDonnell Douglas. Not much response to that. I've also related to you some stuff on Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and his ties to the CIA. There's much more to all this than your one angle is all I'm saying.

Well, I don't know what to say about it. I'm not surprised by it......it certainly doesn't seem out of character, or jarring to the sort of narrative we've been suggesting about them.

It's more evidence in the picture that's building up of them.

What more to this is there? Well, elaborate? Tell us? Write a blog on it and link to it? Spell it out if it appears to need spelling out?

Was it Marshall Mcluhan who said "If they haven't heard you, you haven't said it?" ;)

I honestly really appreciate your criticism. I might not agree with it, but I am very grateful it's there.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: CLEARLY you have seen how The Turd has twisted my words, ignored, dodged and deflected points Ive made and even DENIED I answered him over and over when I HAD like 4 times, right?

I ignored and dodged your points by dedicating a post entirely to them?

Yeah, makes sense Larry.

Are you an architect Larry?

You still haven't answered, yet I openly offered the information I am no architect. I didn't need asking for the information - you won't answer when the question is asked. See the difference?

And what have you proven about WTC7 Larry? You refuse to answer this question too.

You've proven nothing. You just keep saying "it couldn't have happened".

Why?

---"Because WTC7 wasn't on fire."

Clearly it was.

--"Because WTC7 wasn't damaged by debris."

Clearly there's every chance it was - the evidence shows buildings even further away suffered damage from debris.

--"No other building like WTC7 has ever collapsed."

No other building like WTC7 has ever experienced the same conditions and *not* collapsed.

The large amounts of definite and positive evidence that IS available can be formed into a viable hypothesis that explains the evidence.

The evidence against such a hypothesis amounts to QUESTIONS - not all of which are even honest - or could have a satisfactory answer.

Really, all you're saying is "I know it couldn't have happened!"

based on your expertise in the field, right? (See the questions you refused to answer above?)

I offer you a challenge, Larry - what is your actual evidence? Not just questions......but actual evidence? You haven't offered any yet, at all - only questions. You simply refuse to accept reasonable answers to them - fair enough - but now it's your turn? What is YOUR evidence?

- so 3 questions, ok Larry?

1) What's your expertise? Are you an architect?

2) What have you proven?

3) How? Based on what? What is your positive evidence.....(No questions - rather CLEAR BOLD ASSERTIONS, please.)

-----------

After you've done that, write a separate post with whatever you want to ask, or accuse me of having "avoided"?

If you yet again refuse to answer these same questions, I don't see why I should for you.

Oh - and improve your language and tone, Larry?

You've been given free rein.....quit your whining and cursing.

socrates said...

Thanks for the hefty response delivered with grace. I refuse to respond to or read Larry's stuff, unless he can chill the nastiness.

I agree with your general premise that right wing disinfo sources have taken over the net. They have spammed so well, that the search engines have become less effective. Most of the work turns out to be finding credible sources rather than having sincere people try to reach consensus on reliable data.

I just think you need to add a bit more humility to your presentation. Saying that the put option movement was a coincidence doesn't make it go away. On Al Qaeda not taking credit for Sept. 11th, you also fall flat, imho. Terrorists always take credit for their activities. Can you name one time they haven't? I'm not saying anything about who did Sept. 11th. I certainly do not believe Bush or Cheney were involved in anything like that. I would guess it would be creepy intelligence types we've never heard of, if it was an inside job.

I'm not sure of your evidence from the Pentagon about bodies found, etc.. I'm going by how no hijacker or maybe anyone could have flown a plane that fast at that trajectory without touching the ground or whatnot.

9/11 just isn't my topic. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a social theorist if anything.

As for suggesting you cover Israel's heinous activities in regards to Palestine, I do so for it would leave no wiggle room for the disinfo side to say you have a dog in the hunt. I am no expert on the Middle East either, but it's clear as day that the Israeli government is in the wrong. Asymmetrical warfare sounds like ethnic cleansing. Plus, my take is that this topic shows that there are profound differences between left and right when it comes to important issues concerning peace. Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and now Obama have signaled to Israel that peace is the only solution. On the other hand, one of the first things GW Bush did after he stole the Presidency through the reactionary Supreme Court was to declare that the U.S. was not going to be involved too much with that peace process. GW gave Israel a blank check, so to speak.

I also think you need to cover the spy factories and the military-industrial complex. This is a huge development. Who'd have ever thought that the "enlightened" West would take away our civil liberties?

I think you have become dogmatic to a degree with your 9/11 schtick. If you don't see a problem with the JREF debunker cultists, then I don't know what to say. Dogma with anything is no good.

I used to think Brett Kimberlin might be tied in with professional disinfo. I have evolved into thinking he is a confidence man. He was a millionaire in his teens. The dude is a genius, albeit a mad one. It is very interesting how he is tied into Tinoire and Rivero. I guess I was a bit too harsh on you in my last post, but you took it the nice way. You're a better man than me in regards to that.

As for Larry, I don't understand why he doesn't use apostrophes. You notice that? And the other wingnut is leaving a space before punctuating. I think trolls tend to make spelling and grammatical mistakes on purpose. Though as with the put options, I admit this is circumstantial evidence of something undefined.

In short, I am fairly proud of what has been accomplished despite other misunderstandings or disagreements.

I'll repeat that I feel Tinoire is the prime example of how the Jew hate has entered the left-o-sphere. I also think it is quite profound that BradBlog's moderator is a Tinoire type clone, and that she and a few others have offshoot blogs devoted to portraying the left as Jew haters. BradBlog is part and parcel of Brett Kimberlin and Velvet Revolution. VR is tied directly to Tinoire's awful outlet. Tinoire reeks of spookery, plain and simple. So does Rivero. Others like Kimberlin and Brad Friedman, who knows? Perhaps they are so into themselves and their money from hoodwinking donors from their various hoaxes, that they are the proverbial useful idiots.

{continued}

socrates said...

As for the "Election Integrity" movement, I believe that has been merely a vehicle for such confidence men to rake in big bucks. I believe the disinfo crowd, the so-called psyops, have co-opted a real movement along with those confidence men, Bev Harris, and others. It can be hard to tell who is outright disinfo in the cointelpro sense with those who are grifters. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it unless something better arises to take its place.

n.b. I see how you have changed the comment above this posting box. That was a good move. This is the one thing the trolls won't address, their ties to racists and fascists. It is time to take the high road, especially since Larry has been posting here. He is obviously a twat as seen through his constant overuse of derogatory statements. But one needn't stoop to his kind of level more than is necessary.

Anonymous said...

"Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views.

Anonymous said...

care to explain what my extreme political views are ?

the_last_name_left said...

S: Thanks for the hefty response delivered with grace.

Cool. :)

I'm sorry it's a hefty response - I'm longwinded, I know.

I'm more than happy to bash about ideas - I think that's the real pleasure of 'net arguments.

I've thought before that what "we"/society/friends need is better ways to accommodate differences.....rather than all try to get on the exact same hymn sheet. Partly that's a reflection of my disillusionment in the idea that a socialist revolution isn't far off. I don't see the masses as being in a condition of incipient socialism. And vanguardism just seems more of Plato's Republic - even if it's intended to be benevolent and classless rather than consciously brutal and deceptive like the Straussian version.

However - what does one do if other people in the world seem intent on destroying it? Let them - because of one's commitment to "liberty"? I think this is going to become major issue - and it's one people seem to want to avoid dealing with. Understandably.

See - longwinded? Sheesh...... lol

S: I just think you need to add a bit more humility to your presentation.

OK. But humility isn't something that's given a lot of respect by, well, people like Larry. I find myself in a tension.....why shouldn't I speak to Larry + his ilk in their terms?

TBH though, it's a criticism I've had a lot. I'm an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, apparently. Go figure! lol. I don't see it, but then I wouldn't. would I? ;)

And it takes long enough to make a point crudely - if I hedged everything as tenderly and delicately as I can manage, it'd take an eternity to get anything said. Still - I'm happy to accept I can be an arrogant SOB etc. And it's boring to read continual equivocation? I do have an urge to provoke - that's something I'd like to be capable of. I think there's more playfulness in me than my critics realise.

S: Saying that the put option movement was a coincidence doesn't make it go away.

No, I know. But what is there to it? If these things are going to be given legs and gain traction - then where is the evidence that is going to do that? I don't see any - the claims have got weaker and fewer over time - not stronger. Larry went straight to WTC7 - 911 conspiracism has retreated to that point, as the evidence against the other claims has accumulated, and opinion has shifted.

My opinion has changed - as a result of the accumulation of evidence. Right after 9/11 we were in a position of having all those "questions" - and we obviously had no answers immediately. The position is quite different now imo - my opinion has changed - based on the evidence. There doesn't seem to be any positive evidence for any of the various conspiracies. LIHOP can be admitted, but it has to be acknowledged that it is admitted more for the reason that it cannot be discounted than there being any positive evidence which definitely rules it in. Who can ever prove "they let it happen 'on purpose'"? What would it take? A memo saying xyz? Where is any of this stuff?

But how is anyone going to prove their "purpose" without some blockbuster evidence? So what proof is there? There's never going to be any available, imo. The only proof you could hope to find would be to MIHOP - but where is that evidence? And without that evidence, how can we even make the claim?

the_last_name_left said...

We already know USA was funding and encouraging OBL/AQ/Mujahadeen from Carter's era. Would that be "foreknowledge"? Not in the way conspiracism implies about foreknowledge of 911.

If AQ isn't "real" then what the hell was Carter Admin funding in Afghanistan? If AQ isn't real then what of the noise "on the arab street"? Is there nothing going on in the world that might energise a radical religious movement into violence? Against "the great satan"?

Whne I'm told AQ doesn't exist - "it's AL-CIA-DA, asshole!" I see that as a reflection of a few things - 1) a belief that no-one but the CIA could hate americans and america enough to commit atocities 2) a belief that no-one but CIA/Americans/Jews are capable of such "feats" - certainly not "some arab in a cave". People don't see how much condescension there is in saying "Some arab in a cave? yeah right!" 3) a denial of a deep rejection and hatred of america. There's a deep hatred of america smouldering through Britain in my view - and if it's present in Britain, I can only imagine what it is like elsewhere. To say AQ is "fantasy" seems to negate the whole thing of resistance to "americana", particularly arab and moslem resistance. It seems to just adopt a position of absolute denial of resistance, and the CAUSES of such resistance. Easier to blame the jews - and the israel/palestine conflict? That's easier, and more functional than having to address genuine social movements of resistance - which AQ certainly are feeding off too.

I don't think AQ are doing arab nationalism or moslems any favours, really. But that doesn't stop religious fundamentalists and even moderates finding resonance and hope in what AQ say and do. Moslem fundamentalists are as kooky as jewish ones or christian ones - and I find the preparedness of people to bow to Islamic fundamentalism - for the sake of attacking Western and Jewish aggression as pretty sickening - just AS sickening as bowing down to the other sorts ie jewish and christian. People who crow about Israeli/jewish fundamentalism seem to turn a blind eye to moslem fundamentalism - even going so far as to deny it exists as a threat at all. And all for tactical political advantage!

I know from (very limited) experience of moslem fundamentalism that AQ is "real" - in so far as it represents and is supported by radical muslims. If my acquaintance and his friends believe it is "real" then it is.

the_last_name_left said...

Incidentally, I found it very intriguing than his and my analysis of "the problems with the world" were not so very different - but when we thought of proposals about what to do about it - we diverged almost completely. I'm a socialist, and he was a Sharia-law supporting Mulsim. Totally different solutions. No left and right - no differences - sure........

S: I certainly do not believe Bush or Cheney were involved in anything like that.[911]

Well, it would take very good evidence to be able to claim it. That evidence is simply not there.

And anyway - the war in Iraq seems a far more provable instance of criminality - the chief war crime - a crime against peace. And even that's not been pursued to what would seem the obvious conclusion. So why is 911 so important? Boy - I hate reading (americans) say that 911 is the most important event in history.....that one's opinion about it is "THE CRUCIAL ISSUE". It's self-obsessive - and again simply assumes a position which denies the travails of the rest of the world, and american intervention in it especially.

I used to ask people WHY the iraq war was wrong. Pinning down such details can help show hypocrisy. A lot of people oppose the Iraq without any opposition to offensive war in general, without any respect for other cultures and suchlike, and certainly without respect or support for the UN.

Ah - the UN! Founded on the Nuremburg principles......but hated by Alex Jones and the "patriot" oppositionists to the Iraq war. They scream "war crimes" whilst denying the legitimacy of the institution which embodies them.

Israel hasn't observed the vote of the UN! It's an international PARIAH!!! Even though the people saying this don't actually support the UN at all - and in fact they claim it's a major vector towards the implementation of some super-scary "new world order".......

Invading Iraq was a war-crime, they holler. Then they're claiming UN and ICC are "satanic instruments of the new world order" designed to "enslave america" and deprive her of her sovereignty.

Like Iraq being beholden to the same UN rules isn't Iraq being forced to relinquish sovereignty? Like America can be guilty of war-crimes if you don't ON PRINCIPLE accept the legitimacy of the institution tasked with upholding such laws and punishing such crimes?

The patriots and conspiracists reflect Bush W on this - "We will not allow anyone to compromise US freedom to act!" (or some such - can't find the quote atm)

the_last_name_left said...

How can anyone even refer to "anonymous" political views, let alone explain anything about them?

Out the shadows a little, first, huh?

socrates said...

We need to start a forum. We should be co-admins. You into it? This place should remain true to its mission statement. A new place could give us much more breathing room. Let me know. It's real easy, and you know from my specialty place, it's much easier to post on a forum than blogspot. It's more user-friendly. This is getting to be work. Scrolling down to your posts, scrolling back to write. I'm not a fan of blogspot. Yet, I have noticed blogspots don't seem to ever be deleted even if abandoned. Not sure.

on net arguments- There needs to be someone to lay down the law. It's the blog owner's ultimate call. Larry is definitely abusing ad hominems and grammar concerning apostrophes while also overusing bold blocks. I don't like the other guy putting a space before the punctuation. I'd ban someone for that alone. :)

It could take ten years before an intellectual revolution takes place which would pave the way for utopic socialism. We are still in the bullshit stage. That started with the 80s with Thatcher and Reagan.

Less of the masses than in previous decades understand the true meaning of liberty. The wingnuts don't realise that equal schools, the right to a job and health care, a graduated income tax, and weed are the basics for any civilised geography to thrive.

You simply cannot return the serve, if you're dealing with a troll infiltrator. They either abide to your rules or out the door. You'd look even more likely to be part of some script if you were consistently nasty or allowed hate speech and spam to persist. Such free speech turns off good folks from potentially joining in. Yes, we're all human. There should be some wiggle room for behaviour. Look at us. We totally pissed each other off, yet since we are ultimately nice people who got a lot of similar things done, and if I may add onto this run-on sentence, seeing that we were similarly cybersmeared, we were forced to try to reach an understanding. Guys like Larry don't seem capable of providing any relief from the hate speech.

Alright, this is gonna have to be continued. I don't like how blogspot puts a character limit on each post.

socrates said...

On put options: It is what it is. It is also a credible thing to keep on the table unlike the "Jews Did It" by Rivero-Carto-Tinoire Incorporated.

Obviously plenty of the 9/11 conspiracy chatter has been ridiculous. Holograms. Actual no plane theories. Space weapons. That's crazy stuff to go along with the anti-semitism.

I just think you're totally wrong to believe the official explanation. I think it is at a minimum, a complete enigma between the official story and a good possibility that the truth would blow your mind. As for your talking about it's racist to suggest extreme fundamentalists in caves could not pull this off, it is naive for you to belittle the odds of let/made it happen on purpose in part by rogue Western intelligence.

When did Al-Queda take credit for Sept. 11th? Did they? You don't seem to get the ramifications of this question.

Hey, rogue CIA or alas top CIA brass could have some type of power or influence over al-Queda. The U.S. has worked with thugs before, for example with Saddam and Noriega.

Both Iraq Wars and the Clinton Administration's actions towards Iraq have been criminal. Good points on the UN. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. had no legal right to go in there. In the first Gulf War, April Glaspie gave Saddam the go-ahead to invade Kuwait, which was historically part of Iraq. This second Gulf War has no wiggle room in regards to criminality and suspension of the Geneva Codes.

Sept. 11th was one of the most important dates in U.S. History. The loss of life may not have been that hefty, but it totally reshaped whatever the Historians will label this era. America hasn't felt a pinch like this since The Depression. It's gonna take some nifty accounting to keep the ship afloat. Oh, I'm sure the dingleberries in power won't let things slip into riots and chaos. But things are not fair here and are getting much worse. We Americans are not that rich. We never were. I think there are a lot of European posers whose own countries have been just as much to blame for the state of the earth. Any of ye blokes and lasses who think it's us Yanks to blame are being no less simplistic than wingnuts saying Bush and Cheney along with their Joo handlers created the 9/11th atrocity. It's one of the most important dates in US History. There's no way to quantify things like this. Our economy did tank. One thing I must say, the PTB's certainly have made social reality much less copacetic. Clinton might not have been the poor man's President, but he did balance the budget. It was tremendously easier to get a job back then. Republicans are the ultimate hypocrites with stereotyping the Democrats as tax and spend. It's all in the historical records. Clinton was good for the economy. GW Bush tanked it. That's another real left versus right difference. GW squandered the economy on mass numbers of death and destruction. Yes, GW Bush is responsible for death. He is clearly a war criminal. You can't start illegal wars and mayhem based on lies. There was something called the White House Iraq Group. Think Progress had good stuff on them back in the day. There's your conspiracy.

socrates said...

What's the backstory to your avatar?

Real Truth Online said...

See how this fucker LIES? I NEVER said WTC 7 wasnt on fire or damaged by debris. I have continually said it was MINIMAL.

Then you LIE again by saying that I said:

--"No other building like WTC7 has ever collapsed."

I said no other building has collapsed DUE TO FIRE AND DAMAGE like that as of WTC 7. You have FAILED to show me pictures of buildings that have suffered UNIVERSAL COLLAPSES as a result of fires and damage. The McCormick Center (you know, the building in which I HAD TO PROVIDE THE LINK FOR) was NOT a universal collapse.

Why do you resort to LIES to make your points if you are the one who possesses the truth???

You said this about the Pentagon:

"I don't mean to be facetious, but when they crash at 500mph that's pretty close to the ground?"

OH BROTHER! When planes crash they are usually spiralling towards the ground---not FLYING and not under the control of the pilots. The biggest issue with the Pentagon is simply no debris from the plane. Wheres the wing damage? The OFFICIAL story says the wings "fell off" upon impact---well, wheres the wings in the pics? They should be laying outside the Pentagon, but they were NOT.

You said:

"The purported pentagon "video" is pretty hokey though - it is very hard to believe a large jetliner could be flown at the pentagon like that"

Hmmmmm, so you DOUBT the official story?????? You cant doubt one part and trust other parts. The official story all comes from the same source! You cant have it both ways pal! You cant pick and choose. Either you believe the official story 100% or you doubt it 100%. Hypocritical FRAUD.

You also said "no evidence Cheney and Bush were involved?"----of course! They would have to INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES to get evidence---and because the 9-11 commission was a huge FARCE, no one will be prosecuted. Why did Bush and Cheney give their testimony at the 9-11 hearings in closed quarters, NOT under oath and no witnesses? Why werent their testimonies given SEPERATELY?

Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Real Truth Online said...

No evidence huh? Norman Pineta TESTIFIED at the 9-11 commission that Cheney KNEW the plane coming toward the Pentagon was at least 50 miles out. That is a DIRECT contradiction with the 9-11 commission finding. The official story says that the plane was off the radar until it was too late to evacuate the Pentagon. Since Pinetas testimony reveals that Cheney KNEW the plane was coming at at LEAST 50 miles out----then Cheney is personally responsible for every single death of the Pentagon employees. If the plane was going at 500mph and it was 50 miles out, that means they had SIX minutes to evacuate the Pentagon. Not a whole lot of time, but its ALOT more time than ZERO minutes. Many people could have been saved in 6 minutes. I wouldbet that everyone in that particular section of the Pentagon would have made it out since that particular section had far less people in it than any other section since it was under construction. Most of the people that died were construction workers anyway. If you cant at least agree that at the very least that Cheney is responsible for every Pentagon death, then your head is so far up your ass, you have to cough to shit.

Heres Norman Minetas testimony:

http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - you have again avoided answering the questions. Continue and I will remove your posts and put them in a dustbin.

Here are the questions - please address them.

I offer you a challenge, Larry - what is your actual evidence? Not just questions......but actual evidence? You haven't offered any yet, at all - only questions. You simply refuse to accept reasonable answers to them - fair enough - but now it's your turn? What is YOUR evidence?

- so 3 questions, ok Larry?

1) What's your expertise? Are you an architect?

2) What have you proven?

3) How? Based on what? What is your positive evidence.....(No questions - rather CLEAR BOLD ASSERTIONS, please.)

-----------

After you've done that, write a separate post with whatever you want to ask, or accuse me of having "avoided"?

If you yet again refuse to answer these same questions, I don't see why I should for you.


Address the questions, or I shan't any longer address you.

You've had nearly a week to answer whether you are an architect or not. You still haven't answered, despite being asked repeatedly.

Play the game, or not at all.

the_last_name_left said...

Avatar was part of a flyer I did in the run-up to the Iraq war - "The boys are back in town".....with Bush and Blair in silly headgear - Blair with this mousey thing and Bush had a fluffy devil's hat on (red horns, I think)

The flyer had their pictures on, with a big nuke explosion going off behind them......saying "Boys are back in town"........the new album, featuring "Bomb you (back to the stone-age)", "Is that your mother, with her skin on fire?" and other classics.

I can't find a copy of it atm. The pic of Blair might be all I have left.....

I did a whole series of photoshopped pics of blair wearing a gas mask - in the house of commons, on a plane etc.

I have a good one of a press conference with A Sharon laughing, stood next to Bush, whose face is a toilet urinal. It was for a website I had underway called "Ghosts of Resolutions Past" (about run up to Iraq war, and the lack of a 2nd resolution authorising military action - and Israel's relative imperviousness to UN resolutions.)

the_last_name_left said...

There's really nothing conclusive about the share-dealing.

I concur with 911myths.com, who say

Maybe this is all true, but it would help if there was some evidence to support any of these claims. Until there is, the simpler explanation makes more sense to us -- these trades were made by normal investors with no foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.


LINK

LINK

LINK


LINK


I don't see why anyone would be so stupid as to take traceable options on such shares based on foreknowledge. If they're so clever to pull off 911, why be so stupid? Doesn't make sense to me. Of course - if there's very good evidence for it - sure - I'd be persuaded - who wouldn't? But what is the evidence? Un-named sources - repeated and exaggerated claims - etc. Same old. Nothing actually concrete. When there's nothing concrete to go, we really should be asking why people make the claims they do - based on what? A lack of proof otherwise? Well, that's just not good enough.

Anything "odd" is attributed with the qualities necessary to prolong the conspiracy angle.....then an absence of absolute proof otherwise is used as "AH!! - See........."

One fallacy that seems common to conspiracism involves the adding up of chances. Conspiracism points to slim possibilities - "they could have planted explosives" - "they could have planted evidence" - etc. and this is used to build up a picture of possibility.

But the thing is, when you add up small chances of things happening - the chances don't stack to make the entire scenario MORE likely - they stack to make the chance increasingly UNLIKELY.

A 5% chance of x happening, added with a 5% chance of y happening is not a 10% chance of x and y happening - it's 0.1%.

L/RTO: Pinetas testimony reveals that Cheney KNEW the plane was coming at at LEAST 50 miles out----then Cheney is personally responsible for every single death of the Pentagon employees.

I think that's ridiculous.

Would you care to explain how Cheney was supposed to know the pentagon was the target?

And what was he supposed to do? Evacuate the entire pentagon? In 6 minutes? Leaving the central hub of US defence unmanned? Errr - right.

If he'd done that doubtless you'd be insisting it was negligent, and was only done so as to cover-up his evil doings somehow.

So come on, genius - how was he supposed to know it was heading for the pentagon when the plane was 50 miles away?

Larry said...

"Larry - you have again avoided answering the questions. Continue and I will remove your posts and put them in a dustbin."

Hmmm, gonna resort to CENSORSHIP????? LOL

"Would you care to explain how Cheney was supposed to know the pentagon was the target?"

Mineta testified that a young man came into the bunker every few minuts and said "the plane i 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out.....the plane is 20 miles out." thn the man said to Cheney "do the orders still stand?" Cheney said back to him "of course they still stnd, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

I ask you TURD, why was this testimony NEVER EVER followed up on? Why wasnt Cheney questioned on this? What were the "orders"? I ask you thi also TURD, if the orders were to SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE, well, obviously, the plane was NOT shot down, so one can conclude that the orders were to stand down and LET the plane hit--and since the plane hit, then its safe to assume that Cheney KNEW the target!

I have much BETTER questions for you----why was Cheney NEVER questioned about this? Thi is EVIDENCE that Cheney KNEW the plane was coming from 50 miles out. It could have even been farther away, Minetas testimony just mentions that's as much as HE heard.

I told you assface that 6 minutes isnt a lot of time, but its more time than ZERO time, which could have saved A LOT of lives!

Remember the official story says that THEY DIDNT KNOW THE PLANE WAS COMING UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE TO EVACUATE, fucktard.

the_last_name_left said...

You are ignoring clear questions, Larry.

I ask once again:

I offer you a challenge, Larry - what is your actual evidence? Not just questions......but actual evidence? You haven't offered any yet, at all - only questions. You simply refuse to accept reasonable answers to them - fair enough - but now it's your turn? What is YOUR evidence?

- so 3 questions, ok Larry?

1) What's your expertise? Are you an architect?

2) What have you proven?

3) How? Based on what? What is your positive evidence.....(No questions - rather CLEAR BOLD ASSERTIONS, please.)


Are you going to answer, or not?

Larry said...

Naturally, you IGNORE my questions. I win

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - it is all over this blog how you avoid answering even the simplest direct questions.

For example - how many times have you been asked if you are an architect?

Still you don't answer.

Well, the proof you're a dishonest debater and lacking the most basic personal integrity is is littered around this site.

What a "victory" for you. Gee.