standard "9/11 truth" hit-piece on boing boing

[MacCruiskeen]

potential allies

I would have preferred "potential allies" who didn't spend eight years balancing precariously on a fence while covering their ears, their eyes and their arses simultaneously, all the while lecturing me de haut en bas about the proper and productive way to spend my time. But, you know, that's the way it is in the groves of academe, aka the free marketplace of ideas.

Do they these lights then merit eight years of obsessive attention

Note the rhetorical sleight-of-hand (yet again): "obsessive attention". Wow, creepy! Those Troofers are just like stalkers!!

But as it happens, Jack, you're the one who's just described "these lights" as "potential allies"! - thereby demonstrating... well, what, exactly? That we should ignore them? That we should disdain them? That we should stalk them? That we should suck their dicks incessantly in the hope of extorting some favours, eventually? That you think it's good policy and good politics (and good morals) to pretend that evasiveness and careerism and moral cowardice and wilful ignorance and dismally lazy boilerplate rhetoric are not in fact evasiveness and careerism and moral cowardice and wilful ignorance and dismally lazy boilerplate rhetoric but in truth mere virginal shyness (or something)?

from people who if they want to make themselves useful through their penchant for harrassment could instead be dogging Zelikow, Kean, Rumsfeld, etc.?

Oh yes, it would be dead easy to "dog" those people. Piece of cake. Why, if we simply put our minds to it, then Donald Rumsfeld could hardly go to the pub, the bus-stop or the supermarket without being mercilessly dogged by you, me, Jeff, Mike Ruppert, Mathias Bröckers, Kevin Barrett or TheWebFairy.

By god, why has nobody never thought of this before? It's such a simple but effective tactic. Wake up, Left! Dog the US ruling class! Never grant them a moment of peace! Where there's a will there's a way, you lazy bastards!

But soft... perhaps I'm missing something important here. Maybe Chomsky, Klein, Goldwag, Taibbi, Monbiot, Cockburn and all the other really big guns of the much-feared Critical Opposition have in fact been dogging Rumsfeld, Kean and Zelikow tirelessly about 9/11 while you, I, Jeff, Mathias Bröckers, Michael Ruppert and the Jersey Girls have been wasting our time screaming irrationally at those tribunes of the Left and pelting them with dogshit for eight years?

Hmmm...

It's certainly worth thinking about. It's also worth dismissing with a loud but hollow laugh, once we've thought about it for approximately three milliseconds and seen how much truth there is in it.

Oh, and the relevance of Barrett et al. in this is that they make it very clear to Amy Goodman (the murderer of six billion people!) that if she chooses to show more courage about 9/11, she gets to be allied with them.

No. The relevance of Nasty Evil Barrett et al. in this is in fact precisely nil. It's equal to the the relevance of the fact that at least one of the people who objected, rightly and vehemently, to the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Five was a man who beat his wife. (No, I don't mean me, but I do know it for a fact because I knew him personally.) It's equal to the relevance of Hitler's vegetarianism to arguments pro and and contra vegetarianism. It's of no relevance whatsoever. None. Blatantly obviously.

[JackRiddler]

But as it happens, Jack, you're the one who's just described "these lights" as "potential allies"! - thereby demonstrating... well, what, exactly? That we should ignore them?

A better choice than the other ones you list. Make the case independently of them. Don't add them to some enemies list. Don't exaggerate their supposed influence in covering up 9/11. Focus on the 9/11 plot itself and keep up the demand for disclosure. Some may come around, some may not. Pursuing all "cowards" or perceived "gatekeepers" is worse than a distraction. It's a pointless polarization that no doubt has prompted some of the attacks from their side. It's unwise.

Anyway, from around 2006 or so it was too late, among other reasons because the "movement" itself became inundated with bullshit, so it's high time I got therapy for still caring about it in this helpless fashion, or spending time rehashing the strategy of it. (Except with you - seriously, because I know you, like you, take you seriously, learn from you, respect your continued passion about it - all of that is so.)

You're right on the point about "dogging" the real perpetrators. Forgive me. Obviously that's not easy. But that doesn't make all this pointless invective directed at Chomsky, Goodman or Naomi Klein worthwhile. (The last one especially, who has minimized bashing and avoided the issue of "what really happened" much as she can, and stuck instead to the exploitation of 9/11 as an enabling event, in keeping with her work on disaster capitalism.)

It's kicking the dog.

No. The relevance of Nasty Evil Barrett et al. in this is in fact precisely nil. It's equal to the the relevance of the fact that at least one of the people who objected, rightly and vehemently, to the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Five was a man who beat his wife. (No, I don't mean me, but I do know it for a fact because I knew him personally.) It's equal to the relevance of Hitler's vegetarianism to arguments pro and and contra vegetarianism. It's of no relevance whatsoever. None. Blatantly obviously.

On further reflection you may agree that at least your specific comparison does not stand (although Barrett is also accused of beating his wife). I'm not talking about bad things Barrett does in his capacity as husband, bad as those are, or in his capacity as anything other than as a go-to guy for "9/11 truth" favored by the press. Did the guy you're talking about single out individual journalists, out of the hundreds who failed to write anything about the wrongful imprisonments at all (good or bad), and announce gleefully how they would one day hang from the neck for their war crimes (as Barrett did with Amy Goodman)? Did he facilitate the promotion of theories that the prisons were actually video simulations? Then it would be comparable to the kinds of things Barrett has done. These are intimidations.

These are also wedge attacks, attempts to polarize conflicts that may still be fluid in such a way that those who come down on the Ultra-MIHOP side (no mere official story skeptics allowed in our clubhouse!) are a marginalized minority against a coalition of "debunkers" from the rest of the left all the way to Rumsfeld.

And it goes a lot further - you see all the attacks on Ruppert for not being enough, on Sibel Edmonds for not talking about things she wouldn't have seen, etc. etc. I don't think you're blind to the abuse and the threats that were doled out to almost everyone who was originally in this "movement."

[John Schröder]

This is from Naomi Klein's book:

The clearest example [for the “shock doctrine“] was the shock of September 11, which, for millions of people, exploded “the world that is familiar” and opened up a period of deep disorientation and regression that the Bush administration expertly exploited. Suddenly we found ourselves living in a kind of Year Zero, in which everything we knew of the world before could now be dismissed as “pre-9/11 thinking.” Never strong in our knowledge of history, North Americans had become a blank slate – “a clean sheet of paper” on which “the newest and most beautiful words can be written,” as Mao said of his people. A new army of experts instantly materialized to write new and beautiful words on the receptive canvas of our posttrauma consciousness: “clash of civilizations,” they inscribed, “Axis of evil,” “Islamo-fascism,” “homeland security.” With everyone preoccupied by the deadly new culture wars, the Bush administration was able to pull off what it could only have dreamed of doing before 9/11: wage privatized wars abroad and build a corporate security complex at home.

And this is what she publicly said in November 2007 (I can't find the link to the video right now):

I am not gonna defend the 9/11 truth commission… It is an embarrassment of a report and I do wanna thank you [9/11 skeptic in the audience] for your contribution. I absolutely have many, many questions. I also would put nothing past these guys. All I have said about this is that I report on what I can prove-- and I can’t prove it, so I’m not reporting on it.

The 9/11 report is "an embarrassment", she has "many, many questions" and she says, to someone who had alleged that the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, that she "also would put nothing past these guys". These are strong words that go far beyond what almost all other icons of the left have said on this issue. But nonetheless she apparently still feels the need to belittle people who question 9/11 as "conspiracy theorists". Sad.

Well, at least she's not as bad as Jeremy Scahill. Cosmos from truthaction.org had asked him via Twitter this very pertinent question, referring to what is happening at Pacifica and the Nation's article about that (Scahill had linked to that article, that's why Cosmos wrote to him):

http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5081031954
http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5081036640
http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5081042548

It's good that the Nation can provide the space to cover these bizarre disruption efforts but why on earth can't they publish

a truly objective report on the mass murder that continues to provide unlimited carte blanche for multiple occupations...

...the slaughter of thousands and the destruction of civil liberties.

For some reason Jeremy Scahill, who's usually quite astute, didn't manage to understand this simple question and responded with a completely unwarranted insult:

http://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/5178175345

"bizarre disruption efforts"? um, pot meet kettle.

And then:

http://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/5178788193

I bet the Iraqis and Afghans facing mercs right now don't think trying to stop them is a "bizarre disruption effort"

Even a six year old child who just learned how to read would have easily understood that "bizarre disruption efforts" wasn't referring to Jeremy Scahill at all, so why didn't Jeremy understand it? And why did he accuse Cosmos of being a disrupter himself, when he didn't even know him? On what grounds? Just because he's a "truther", and he thinks all "truthers" are disrupters? (Kind of reminds me of suspecting all Muslims to be terrorists.)

http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5190596790

What's with the "pot meet kettle" crap? Please clarify. You don't think the Nation blog describes a disruption at Pacifica?

http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5082665952

You seem confused and your first reaction is to lash out. It's a shame you can't address the actual issue tho not a surprise.

Jeremy Scahill (intentionally?) misunderstood the question, didn't answer why The Nation can't report fairly about 9/11, and instead insulted Cosmos without any reason. Because of that, Cosmos responded with rather harsh words (which are quite justified, in my opinion):

http://twitter.com/truthaction/status/5209283702

@jeremyscahill is a rebel! His website even says so. With his safe little meal ticket topic and his nose firmly planted up Bill Maher's ass.

To which Jeremy responded:

http://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/5210986947

can I borrow your tinfoil hat to wrap up some leftovers?

http://twitter.com/PrezFord/status/5224786758

can I borrow your line you borrowed from Fox?

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 4524#34524

Apparently the self-styled "rebel reporter" believes you must be wearing a "tin foil hat" if you want to see a mass murder get a proper criminal investigation. I used to respect the guy - now I'm just so glad I never bought his book.

Before that, he had already very subtly dissed 9/11 Truth, by not linking to the 9/11 Truth petition on 911truth.org in his article about Van Jones and instead linking to: "http://it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever/", as if the correct link would have sullied his precious site. 911truth.org is one of the most reasonable 9/11 sites, the petition that Van Jones signed only asked rather cautious questions that shouldn't even be controversial anymore, and he feels the need to distance himself, as if it's a Holocaust denial petition on some racist web site? (In July 2008, he also suggested to Solomon Hughes that the 9/11 Truth movement could be a CoIntelPro type of campaign designed to make leftists look bad, and a year or so before that he publicly said - I'm quoting from memory - that 9/11 Truth was a “huge distraction” and that the Bush administration was happy about it, because “it distracts from their real crimes” - “The facts are bad enough as they are”, he said, whatever he thinks the “facts” about 9/11 are.)

He does great and important work concerning Blackwater, but in the end that's just one small piece of the puzzle (though it makes him a guest on many TV shows, where they give him lots of free booze: "I always love the after-party Bill Maher throws. But the headache the next morning is epic.") Naomi Klein at least acknowledges that there are some grave problems with the official story. Either Jeremy Scahill still doesn't see any mentionable holes in the official story, or he sees them, but for some reason nonetheless chooses to insult the people who point them out. Either way, he should be ashamed of himself.

Max Blumenthal seems to be the same kind of ignoramus. This is a report from someone who recently asked him about 9/11:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21705#comment-220267

Psychologically, I have noticed a tendency of circles on the left to be very averse to any perceived confrontation, especially with people perceived as their 'leaders.' I was at a house party-type salon a few weeks ago in Beverly Hills with Max Blumenthal presenting his book "Republican Gomorrah (sp?)." After waiting for my chance during Q+A, I provocatively pointed out that, while Blumenthal did a very interesting job elucidating the deep psychological kinks of the reactionary 'religious' right and the links of serial woman killer Ted Bundy to elements thereof, he was speaking to and from within a party in full power with a president who, in terms of the term "serial woman-killer" literally meaning killing women over and over again (GWOT drone strikes), had likely well-surpassed Bundy's carnage. So, I asked him to take his analysis further and openly pondered whether the problems of the impotence of the left came from an unwillingness to face difficult truths and the facts thereof. Blumenthal had mentioned earlier in the evening that he would theoretically support a woman in the audience running for the local pacifica board of KPFK as long as she "wasn't a 9/11 truther." So, towards the end of my statement/question, I asked, what do you want- a "9/11 liar?"- and mentioned the left's troubled relationship with confronting the basic facts of 9/11.

Blumenthal started his answer by early on saying that "9/11 truthers are horrible people" or something directly to that effect. He then told a few stories of some alleged "truthers" harrassing people in Shanksville and purposefully misquoting people. I then asked whether he was talking about the thousands of family members of the victims of 9/11 who still want their very basic questions answered about their loved ones' deaths or the almost 1000 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth pointing out the very basic scientific facts showing those buildings and the humans therein to have been demolished in a controlled manner. I was then told to be quiet since I had "already asked" my question by the moderator Louis Vandenburg, the producer of KPFK show host Ian Masters who has called those investigating 9/11 "nuts" and "navel-gazers" and worse. Numerous others in the room told me to be quiet and shut up since Blumenthal had given his answer. I said, with an emotional Libran sense of injustice and a bit of very honest and raw hurt in my voice, that these matters shouldn't be silenced, and asked whether others in the room felt like that was a respectful way to deal with serious debate.

Blumenthal immediately picked up on my hurt and pounced on it by saying, "there's your 9/11 truthers for you." "What, are you going to cry like Glen Beck?!" At this point, I was asked to leave the house, since the "owners were uncomfortable with me being there." I relinquished since the owners appeared to be going along with this. I asked whether I could use the bathroom before I left, was allowed, did so, and then left through the front door while the evening began to carry on. While one man, a 9/11 truth advocate from LA, came out to mediate and be with the man of the house and me to discuss what had happened and what my point was, not one person in that living room, which had numerous individuals allegedly in support of outing the truth of 9/11, either jumped to my defense and tried to mediate inside (which I am always amenable to after my passions rise a bit, which they are sometimes wont to do despite my desires to stay cool), or at least ask, in the moment, Blumenthal to be fair and not slander the entirety of the 9/11 truth movement if not deal with the hard facts themselves. He was the leader who had the book to sell and no passionate 'disrupter' had any valid reason to ask a rhetorically tough question or, get offended after the bookman had 'answered' by slandering a whole group of people, and demand a clarification on the matter.

After leaving, I asked the homeowner whether it would be ok if i stuck around until the event ended so Blumenthal and I could talk about our disagreement, since it was ending in about half an hour or so. He said he could not speak on behalf of Blumenthal but that it was fine with him if I wanted to come back to the front of his house towards the end of the event. I did, but somehow I missed Blumenthal. Many people coming out expressed sympathy both for what I said and for how I had been ostracized in a manner. Others, were quite snooty. The homeowner and I had some intense exchanges and debates with some advice coming from the more established older man to the uppity younger man. I appreciated that he was very honest about how perceived power dynamics played an important role in exchanges like this, where Blumenthal had earned his respect and clout by writing his book and doing the circuit, and I was just some nobody that gave him no reason to listen seriously to anything I had to say. The exchange between us was raw but deep as we called out what we perceived to be each others' weaknesses and blindspots. It was an interesting, but semi-painful, evening of psychological revelation for me both about myself and about the 'scene.'

Blumenthal knows that some "truthers" have harrassed witnesses, and so he brilliantly concludes that all "truthers" are like that. And he insults someone he doesn't know by comparing him to Glenn Beck, for whatever reasons. What a remarkable man. I hope his book is going to be a smashing success, and that he will be enjoying Bill Maher's after-parties as much as Jeremy.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Ach, god, why did I follow the link and start a comment at the bottom of 300 other comments. I thought I could stop doing that. Given that I say nothing new, or that hasn't been said as well and better elsewhere, it's also a form of ritual repetition, isn't it? The fuckers are right, damn it: I need a life.

here it is:

Ahem.

Dear Debunkers,

You can't simply assert a general contradiction between bureaucratic incompetence and organized crime and pretend an argument has been made.

Large, wasteful bureaucracies that harbor incompetence (as well as routine personal corruption and patronage) are actually standing invitations to those who would engage in more organized exploitation and criminal activity. We see this daily in the capture of regulatory functions of the government by corporate interests, as when some Wall Street bank hires everyone fresh out of their stints at the SEC, or gets to appoint the Treasury Secretary.

One of the logical fallacies from the rote debunkers of 9/11 skepticism is in seeing a paradox between incompetence in the government environment and organized criminal activity, which is not prevented but enabled by such incompetence.

The orchestration of September 11th as a psychological operation that could confer carte blanche for the existing war plans and intended policies of the Bush regime would not have been committed by "the Pentagon" or "the CIA" or "the government" per se; but by a network ensconced within those and other agencies.

In other words, the relevant actor would have been a covert operation, not a bureaucracy!

The wealth of loose ends and unlikely synchronicities suggesting such a network begin with the prima facie systematic AWOL on the part of the chain of command during the attacks (from Bush down to Rumsfeld and including Myers, Eberhart, Winfield and Mies) and the reactions of the air defense system on the day; and continue with the prima-facie systematic protection of the alleged hijackers from discovery prior to the day. These loose ends in turn have not been pursued systematically by journalists, the laughably compromised official investigations (Zelikow, hello, despite his exposure by the 9/11 relatives) or, for the most part, by the majority of 9/11 researchers and activists who rely on "case closed" slogans about demolitions (or god forbid, the Pentagon hole) and get cranky over working out the details of the Able Danger suppression or the implications of the September 11th wargames mirroring the actual attack.

Incompetence and imperfection within the operation itself could still rely on the incompetence of the bureaucracy as a whole to cover for it. Also on the reluctance of the media to investigate, on fear and patriotic denial during a time of "war," and on the cultural assumption that all allegations of covert operations within the government are "conspiracy theory" and therefore crazy until established by court standards. (Or enter the history books, a la "Remember the Maine," the "Gladio" false-flag terrorist networks organized in cold war Europe by NATO and the CIA, and the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication.)

Another common fallacy is to apply scientific parsimony to political events. "Occam's Razor" is not a scientific law, it's only a rule of thumb for formulating hypotheses that then still require testing. In the present context, it's just another thought-stopping platitude. When falling rocks can issue press releases denying that they're falling, get back to us. Until then, accept that deception is a daily part of political theater and is often designed to confuse people about what they should consider plausible.

Thanks Jack. That is one of the best debunker spankings I have seen in years. I am sure whatever debunker response you get will be designed to reinforce your suspicions that you need to get a life. But fuck them, you nailed exactly what they bring to the table: "thought-stopping platitude"s. Nice job!

[JackRiddler]

Oh god, I'm losing it. Someone get me off this machine and on a bike.

I just posted on Goldwag's blog AGAIN. Out of all the meaningless, useless ways to blow time on the Internet, posting in the comments sections of blogs after several hundred replies has got to be the single most pointless.

Arthur Goldwag,

so the gist of your article, by the way, seems to be that you chose not to watch the well-reviewed movie (which provides an excellent, sober, researched introduction to the issues of cover-up in 9/11), you did not look for academic or investigative skeptical work on the subject in book form so that you can address the best arguments (Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Ruppert, Michel Chossudovsky), but you did choose to write a quick article dismantling an e-mail from Daniel Edd III, who stands in as a symbolic avatar for the supposed pathologies of the "9/11 truth movement," your critique of which puts an end to concerns about the event itself. Did I get that right?

[thatsmystory]

This is from Naomi Klein's book:

I watched the Book TV speech/Q&A with Blumenthal. He appears (at least to some degree) to buy into the hope of the Democratic party. That would appear to explain in part his reasons for avoiding discussion of 9/11. By that I mean the Democratic party establishment has no interest in 9/11 at least in relation to accountability and transparency.

Klein and Chomsky are outside the Democratic establishment. Their analysis is in fact damning of the political system and reading their books only serves to help one better understand the political intrigue of 9/11.

Do you have an explanation for their reluctance to address 9/11? While I agree with those who find accusations of "gatekeeper!" unproductive, I freely admit I'm curious about their reasons for avoiding discussion of 9/11. Why should they get a pass?

[Jeff]

I just posted on Goldwag's blog AGAIN. Out of all the meaningless, useless ways to blow time on the Internet, posting in the comments sections of blogs after several hundred replies has got to be the single most pointless.

Though copying your post here should go some way towards redeeming your time. Excellent comment.

[norton ash]

Mac, Jack, Schroder... this is strong stuff, very well-put, and speaks directly to what is honest, reasonable, practicable and fair in debating the evidence that has accumulated around a crime.

It puts into proper perspective the square/sane/real-world response of "You're crazy, nothing but a bunch of credulous, paranoid racists. Here is a picture of a cat in a tinfoil hat. Lalalalalala I can't hear you."

I love RI.

[Wombaticus Rex]

"If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth."

That must have been a joke, right? No? Really? That just makes it SO MUCH FUNNIER.

[justdrew]

yes, excellent posts all, nice to see the old familiar subject still has some life in it. and thanks for adding your voice as post #152 on an already semi-old topic Jack (it wasn't that old but they had moved it to a low prominence place on the main page unusually quickly).

that place is great in a lot of ways, with a grain of salt. I've followed them since they were a print zine, but sometimes they really fall into a category I'm not sure what to call... maybe: "The Potempkin Revolutionary Moderates" or "The Captive Resistance" - "a Domesticated Rebellion" maybe ? NEDlings-R-us? and yet they are often very informative, like: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/04/mind-control-with-so.html

[JackRiddler]

Hmm, as my first comment was published but two subsequent comments have not been. I re-posted a modified version of the one addressed to Goldwag this morning with a polite little note saying it might have been lost somehow. This allowed me to add that he "salutes" the Jersey girls but fails to watch their movie. A number of other new comments have in the meantime appeared. Must conclude the moderator (Goldwag, right?) didn't like something. If so, what might that have been? That I politely expose his hypocrisy?

Arthur Goldwag,

So the gist of your article seems to be that you received a recommendation to watch “9/11: Press for Truth” but did not do so, although you refer to it as a “well-reviewed” movie, and although it provides an excellent, sober, researched introduction to the issues of cover-up around 9/11. You do “salute the Jersey Girls,” the women who lobbied for and won the 9/11 Commission, but you didn’t view this documentary, in which they present their case against the process and findings of the 9/11 Commission. You also did not look for academic or investigative skeptical work on the subject in book form, so that you can address the best arguments (Nafeez Ahmed’s “War on Truth,” Peter Dale Scott’s “Road to 9/11,” Michael Ruppert’s “Crossing the Rubicon,” Michel Chossudovsky’s “War on Terrorism,” among others). You didn’t reference the largest archive of sourced facts and claims concerning September 11th available on the Web, the “Complete 9/11 Timeline” edited by Paul Thompson and Kevin J. Fenton at historycommons.org. But you did choose to write a quick article dismantling an e-mail from Daniel Edd III and his recommendation of an “NWO timeline,” and to briefly address Griffin (who freely admits his work derives from the others mentioned above) and Steven Jones (whose research deals only with the question of demolition, not with other evidence of cover-up and orchestration of 9/11 as a covert operation). Edd stands as an avatar for the supposed pathologies of the "9/11 truth movement," your critique of which puts an end to concerns about the event itself. Did I get that right?

Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

Goldwag also didn't publish this one, a response to "anonymous" at 138:

anonymous 138:

Why do you adopt sneering, insulting rhetoric?

Let's play formal and polite, shall we?

Did you address any of my pointers to evidence of an engineered event? No, you did not. You started demanding answers to unrelated questions.

"Why weren't the highjackers made to be Iraqis?"

Who says the hijackers were pure inventions? I didn't. That is not a necessary part of an engineered event. Real Islamist hijackers would even provide a more robust trail. It doesn't change the evidence of facilitation, which you left off (and which indicates you may not have read what I wrote very carefully).
Furthermore, 9/11 didn't serve as a one-off pretext for Iraq. 9/11 served as the pretext for planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, declaration of a global war on terror announced as being waged in many other nations in secret, open adoption of torture, a transformation of domestic law, the USA PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, a further laundry list of other long-desired repressive policies, and a chance to shift literally trillions in spending priorities.
Furthermore, I'll quote something from another anonymous I read today: The anyone-could-be-a-hijacker narrative is "a) directed against a universal actor. whereas the communist threat admitted only a cast of hemispheric penetration, it is the 'terrorist' threat whose actors have penetrated the inner reaches of all minoritarian struggles world-wide. we can see this meme is cleverly 'smoothing out imperialism's battle-space.'"
Also: "b) the notion of an existential enemy provides the causus beli for 'gloves off' Western agents of dubious provenance. just as it was precisely this mentality that provided the glue between the Cold War- Western Response- Terror War, it seems patently obvious that such apologies are designed to bridge the gap between faltering Islamic terror and the next Schmittian Other/Enemy(!)"

"Why (later) weren't even a few grams of some WMD planted in Iraq?"

Besides that it wasn't necessary and wouldn't work? (Since you can't fake the chemical signatures of recently planted, as was explained to me by the man who actually destroyed the Iraqi WMDs in 1992 to 1998.)
I don't know and this has no relevance to this debate. Isn't this something you should be asking the perpetrators of the invasion?

"Why go to the trouble of controlled detonations of buildings that weren't even hit by planes?"

Did you see me talking about demolitions hypothesis? Are you sure you're not cutting and pasting a standard response of yours without actually reading what I wrote?

"Why not manufacture pentagon footage of a plane crashing (hey, they did it for the moon landing, why not here)?"

Why bother and who cares? Also, is this related to anything I wrote? Did you see me talking about the Pentagon hole?

The weakness of these objections, a mix of irrelevancies addressing things I didn't say, should tell us something about how secure you are in this argument.

[MacCruiskeen]

The gold wags and cock burns of this world are a bunch of lying pusillanimous wee shites.

Jack, thank you for your kind words. Rest assured that the liking are respect are mutual. Venceremos. After watching a certain game of football aka sakker I am too pished right now to reply properly but I will do so tomorrow.

[JackRiddler]

Comment about his failure to watch "911: Press for Truth" despite "saluting" the Jersey girls is still unpublished, though he did add more exciting back-and-forth about the all-important Pentagon Hole.

In case this wasn't obvious: Goldwag an intellectual coward & wanker.

[justdrew]

Comment about his failure to watch "911: Press for Truth" despite "saluting" the Jersey girls is still unpublished, though he did add more exciting back-and-forth about the all-important Pentagon Hole.

In case this wasn't obvious: Goldwag an intellectual coward & wanker.

that's for sure. I'm suspect he's pissed-up his guest blogging session by dragging the great unmentionable subject onto bb. Still I think there's some good comments mixed in there, and suspect a numbers of eyes were opened to there being some serious issues.