Cannonfire is leaving

[nomo]

Funny it may have been, but his intent was serious- to utterly discredit and dehumanize people who disagreed with him.

Oh, boo hoo. Calling a spade a spade is not dehumanizing. Now, come up with some real counter arguments instead of crodocile tears.

[sunny]

You don't believe you can be a cokehead and a religious fanatic? What about GW Bush? You don't believe thousands of Arabs hate us for a myriad of reasons? You don't believe the government would rather not look into those flight schools for fear we discover it has been importing dope by the planeload?

First of all, W is a fake Christian so that is a moot point. Either these people were so fanatical, and sincere, they were willing to suicide themselves, or they were coke-heads. Coke head fakers *are not* willing to give their lives for religious beliefs they don't actually believe in. Second, yes I do believe Arabs hate us for a myriad of reasons, I just don't believe Arab hatred of the US had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Or did you just realize how important YOU think you are?
.....
But in your topsy turvy world, all those things mean exactly what you have already determined they should mean. So when I see a nice piece of toast, you see an apparition of the Virgin Mary. Now excuse me while I go hijack me some keywords.

Name-calling as a 'last resort'? Not very logical , nomo.
You might refer to the chart below to see what not to do when advancing your arguments.
I try not to fall into these mistakes.

This is a good guide-
[url]
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm[/url]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

[sunny]

Oh, boo hoo. Calling a spade a spade is not dehumanizing. Now, come up with some real counter arguments instead of crodocile tears.

Calling a spade a spade involves telling the truth. Instead, he has painted the whole movement with these attacks. No shades of gray, no caveats, nothing.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Many scientists and engineering types have reached the same conclusion as Dr. Steven Jones. And many are Christians.
Ya gonna call them all kooks?

You betcha. Science and Christianity (or any other old religion) don't mix. They just don't.

While I share your wariness over the effect of mystery religions on the scientific method I also note that many scientific advances have been made by people who hold these two contradictory systems in their minds. Humans are like that.

For example, Einstein wrote about 'God' but made powerful scientific discoveries.
Just ask the former inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Here's a connection chart from the website where I got that 25 Rules of Disinformation.
Sorry, it's a two-part freebie graphic advertising a newsletter and not re-sizable but you can see that the Venice Flight School is in there and certainly part of the fascist web, just not the whole thing.

I don't know why Hopsicker is so hostile to controlled demolition since his work on the patsies is still important.
[url]
http://www.proparanoid.net/pnl.htm[/url]

"From Vol 2002 Issue #4 (2 pages) on Terrorism Ties Between Bush, Saudi Elite, and MIIM"

[nomo]

Nice tangent dude. And what's with the bold, over-size type? That's supposed to bolster your argument?

Oh, and you're wrong:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quo ... stein.html

My point still stands: Steven Jones is a religious nutcase, and in my book, that makes him suspect.

[nomo]

I don't know why Hopsicker is so hostile to controlled demolition since his work on the patsies is still important.

Sigh. Did you read his post on Cannonfire?

[Seamus OBlimey]

I understand blog fatigue, and do not fault Joe or Jeff for taking time off, or quitting altogether. Many commenters, for whatever reason, feel they have a right to spout whatever crap that comes into their heads, regardless of the blog-owners wishes.
Joe has every right to make his site anti-CD. My point is, he has become extremely angry that a lot of people do not agree with him. As for Hopsicker, his rant totally discredited him in my eyes: (emphasis mine)

So it is just another CD/noCD thread! My mistake

No wonder people need a break.

btw I'm a believer. No other way could those towers come down!

[yathrib]

Sunny, you write:

"So everybody who disagrees with him is either a religious nut, or UFO nut, or funded by Khashoggi. Again, he is saying "that coke snorting whore hopping drug running (according to his own investigations) Arabs, were, nevertheless, religious zealots"

If gay-bashing Christian rightists can be gay, why can't Islamic religious zealots also be drinking, whoring, coke snorting party animals? Just asking. You know what they say about small-minded consistency...

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Obviously lots of scientists and cops and journalists who embrace cause and effect, the scientific method, and respect for evidence-based reason also associate with mystery religions.

That statement can be taken as prima facie and doesn't require 'proof.'
I only used Einstein as famous example.

Nice tangent dude. And what's with the bold, over-size type? That's supposed to bolster your argument?

Just trying to help ya see. Your welcome.

Oh, and you're wrong:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954

Einstein spoke many times on the nature of the God concept and that quote above is his qualified denial of a PERSONAL God.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

"It is best, it seems to me, to separate one's inner striving from one's trade as far as possible. It is not good when one's daily break (sic) is tied to God's special blessing."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean."

"God doesn't play dice."

My point still stands: Steven Jones is a religious nutcase, and in my book, that makes him suspect.

An unsubstantiated assumption about another person's rationality?
Um, isn't that....irrational.

[nomo]

So, if Einstein qualifies his use of the word "god" by saying to him it means something else altogether than what religion makes of it, then how does it make him religious? Oh, right, it doesn't.

Of course, compared to Einstein, Steven Jones is nothing but (I suspect) a well-meaning hack. I mean, seriously, penning a book about how Jesus purportedly visited South America 2,000 years ago isn't even remotely on the same intellectual level. So excuse me for remaining skeptical when the two champions of the so-called scientific research of Controlled Demolition are a theology professor and a Mormon.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So it is just another CD/noCD thread! My mistake

No wonder people need a break.

btw I'm a believer. No other way could those towers come down!

No, this is a critique of the declarations by Cannon and Hopsicker.

Their comments about 9/11 Controlled Demolition is a litmus test of sorts.

I think CD divides those who've looked at the science and realize it is the single most important expose against fascism and those who've 'fatigued out' and are letting the 24/7 disinfo culture bury that critical truth.

Single Big Truths can act as light houses against oceans of disinfo to keep others from crashing into the rocks. The hoax of 9/11 is one of those light houses.

I'd like to offer more from H. Michael Sweeney's website where I found that list of disinfo tactics. Here he hypothesizes a cover-up formula that matches very closely the charts made by Webster Tarpley showing patsies, moles, and cut-outs as an underground system of government. I'll avoid the quotes function for ease of reading>>

http://www.proparanoid.net/formula.htm

>>>>>

For some time I've been playing with the idea of a book along the line of 'Anatomy of The American Conspiracy Machine' or some such. The idea is to show that every one of our government's best cover ups fit a very predictable pattern of events. I guess the idea is that if all these historical nightmares were simply random and natural evolutions of the nature claimed for them by media and government, there should be no 'symmetry' and no identical makeup. One event should not consistently look like another.

But what if there was actually a simple 'formula' in use by someone somewhere in an a CIA office named 'Office of OPerationS COntingency Planning Services' (OOPS-COPS)? What impact might that formula, if applied time and time again, have on the actual crimes involved? Would there be some kind of detectable 'signature' or pattern that clever observers could spot? You bet!
.....
Taking JFK, Flight 800, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, for instance (others qualify, but these are useful to the newsletter), it can be shown that there are a number of 'coincidental' matters. From these clues, I have been so bold as to 'theorize' what the OOPS-COPS formula might look like:


CU = (AC + P) x (LA + FB) x (4 + D) x (FE - TE) ^ (GI)

This translates as:
a successful CoverUp equals
(Abundant Clues plus a Patsy) times
(Linked Alternatives plus a Fall-Back Position) times
the (FOURth estate plus Disinformationalists) times
(False Evidence sold as truth minus True Evidence ignored)
raised to the power of a government controlled investigation... Wag the Dog!

Two of these 'variables' need further definition. Linked alternatives refers to evidenciary trails which tend to lead all investigators, including the 'buffs' down a myriad set of paths which keep crossing each other or running directly one into another. The Fourth Estate is a media controlled by government, more specifically, to include CIA's takeover via Operation Mockingbird (<http://www.proparanoid.net/post.htm>)
.....
>>>>>>>>>

HMW- There's more and I recomment the above website to all.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I don't know why Hopsicker is so hostile to controlled demolition since his work on the patsies is still important.

Sigh. Did you read his post on Cannonfire?

Yes, I did.

[nomo]

I don't know why Hopsicker is so hostile to controlled demolition since his work on the patsies is still important.

Sigh. Did you read his post on Cannonfire?

Yes, I did.

Repetition creates truth. That's the larger issue at play here, larger even than 9/11. In an age of info overload, "facts" become credible not through the accumulation of evidence but through sheer inescapability.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/12/ ... truth.html