tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post4417618687282248145..comments2023-06-25T09:40:13.649-05:00Comments on Russell Glasser's blog: In Which I Ridicule 9/11 ConspiraciesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-81358559445537477772010-02-18T04:13:11.190-06:002010-02-18T04:13:11.190-06:00I understand that there are gaps in the 9/11 Commi...I understand that there are gaps in the 9/11 Commission Report, but coming to the conclusion that it was an 'inside job' is quite ridiculous, to say the least. Much like Matt said, simply because you (or any of your 'Truth' buddies) don't accept the current conclusion doesn't suddenly validate an alternative theory.<br /><br />I'd love to see proof of the government's hand in 9/11, just like I'd love to see proof of a Jebus.T.J.http://tweezer510-at-aim.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-86265996535073898972007-12-25T21:47:00.000-06:002007-12-25T21:47:00.000-06:00When Japan hit Pearl Harbor, the government knew i...When Japan hit Pearl Harbor, the government knew it was going to happen because we had broken their codes; however, in order to keep Japan from changing their codes we didn't do anything about the attack. Some say it was negligent, but others would say that it was necessary. History has proven out that it worked out ok in the end.<BR/><BR/>Leading up to 9/11 there were a lot of warnings that something was going to happen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that all of the warnings were ignored on purpose. You realize it when the administration states that there were no warnings which flies in the face of the reality. This isn't to say that it was orchestrated by the government. What I am saying is that some in our government are complicit in the activities of 9/11 by turning a blind eye, or were willingly ignorant so that they could do what they wanted later when the entire US population wanted something done, and was willing to do whatever it took to get it done.<BR/><BR/>America is the sleeping giant that when it wakes up it's cranky as hell. Eventually it goes back to sleep until the next crisis wakes it up again.<BR/><BR/>Something to note: I believe that Arabs are quite capable of pulling it off with military precision because they are the same Arabs that took on the Russians in Afghanistan and forced them out. And yes, we backed them all the way. So, once again, our policies are being thrown in our face.<BR/><BR/>Al Queda, Iraq, Iran, et al : all of these are problems that we have either created, help create, or funded indirectly or directly.<BR/><BR/>We are the masters of our own destruction.<BR/><BR/>Aren't we absolutely brilliant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-32887713633429296552007-11-13T15:16:00.000-06:002007-11-13T15:16:00.000-06:00Why do conspiracy theorists ignore such huge gaps ...Why do conspiracy theorists ignore such huge gaps in logic. Silverstein made the 'pull it' comment on a news intervew! Huh? Did he forget for a second that he was involved in a massive cover up? Was it a freudian slip that wasn't supposed to come out on live tv? Or the more likely alternative that he meant something completely different.Rhys Halliwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11614055471243806429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-38559157533959761422007-11-12T18:56:00.000-06:002007-11-12T18:56:00.000-06:00Silverstein said to "Pull-it"talking about bring b...<I>Silverstein said to "Pull-it"<BR/>talking about bring building 7 down.<BR/>I think one would have to be a conspiracy theorist to deny that he meant demolition.</I><BR/><BR/>No, one just has to be knowledgeable about the demolition business. "Pull it" is not a term used in that line of work to order the demolition of a building. Read some more info <A HREF="http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I agree that Bushco wanted the Iraq war all along. That's a matter of record. But they didn't stage 9/11 to justify it. I think they simply ignored all the warnings and intel that was coming in that summer abut an imminent terrorist attack on US soil, so as to use whatever happened as their justification for invasion. I don't think they expected 9/11 to be as big and deadly as it was (they were probably expecting more along the lines of the 1993 bombing attempt), but it didn't upset their plans much in the end.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-19032444587043164922007-11-11T18:23:00.000-06:002007-11-11T18:23:00.000-06:00There are a TON of relevant questions that have ne...There are a TON of relevant questions that have never been answered, and that is the price this ADMIN has to pay for being so secretive.<BR/>BUSH/CHENY-Co tried to stop the investigation with a fury. One has to wonder about that as well.<BR/><BR/>The worst thing that happened to the "truth movement" is that the WTC buildings looked like a controlled demolition.<BR/>There is so much other data <BR/>(and OURIGHT LIES) <BR/>surrounding 9/11 that we really dont need something that cant be proven.<BR/><BR/>Bush either saw the first plane crash 1 day before anyone else, or he lied about it.<BR/>Could he have been mistaken and really saw the 2nd crash ?<BR/>No, he said the TV was obviously on<BR/>Also, he repeated this claim months later.<BR/><BR/>Silverstein said to <A HREF="http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html" REL="nofollow">"Pull-it"</A><BR/> talking about bring building 7 down.<BR/>I think one would have to be a conspiracy theorist to deny that he meant demolition.<BR/>If you watch him closely, theres no doubt what he meant.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://911review.org/Wiki/FAA_NORAD_911.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>The FAA and NORAD also lied.</A><BR/><BR/>The plans for war with Iraq were drawn up BEFORE Sept 11, and PNAC said we need something like a new Pearl Harbor.<BR/><BR/>Recenlty, other Repugs have said we need another 9/11.<BR/><BR/>Now who is the Conspiracy theorist ?<BR/><BR/>over 1 million Iraqis have died sine the invasion, and we are still counting.<BR/>Bush's OIL buddies are filthy rich, as are most of the DOD contractors like <A HREF="http://humor.worldispnetwork.com/video/Aegis_Video.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>THESE PEOPLE.</A><BR/><BR/>So we have contractors in Iraq who are shooting up people for the fun of it.<BR/><BR/>Do you think THEY cared about the 3,000 in the WTC if they KNEW it would make them FILTHY RICH ?<BR/><BR/>The whole war in Iraq was a FARCE.<BR/>The LIES about WMD to the LIES ahbout the OIL paying for the war, to the LIES about them welcoming us, to the LIES about <A HREF="http://batcave911.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-details-on-tillmans-death.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>TILLMAN</A><BR/>TO the LIES about <A HREF="http://www.911review.org/Alex/Able-Danger.html" REL="nofollow">Able Danger</A><BR/><BR/>They KNEW BETTER.<BR/><BR/>So whether they did it, or helped it along matters not much, they WANTED itbatcave911https://www.blogger.com/profile/16310881498540169402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-39423034618816298462007-11-01T16:40:00.000-05:002007-11-01T16:40:00.000-05:00If you want people to believe your pet theory abou...If you want people to believe your pet theory about 9/11, then you need to offer evidence to support your claim. (This is true for ALL claims, by the way.)<BR/><BR/>If you don't find any of the current explanations convincing, that's your prerogative, but your doubt - on its own - is not evidence for your alternate hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>The conspiracy theorists prey upon any mistake, gap or perceived gap in the standard explanation. They gather disparate facts, stir in some conjecture and fabricate a story that is only slightly more believable than religious myths.<BR/><BR/>Creationists and conspiracy theorists have so much in common.Matt D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06865398618141711897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-71517711334653731242007-11-01T10:33:00.000-05:002007-11-01T10:33:00.000-05:00I remember where I saw that theory advanced now: I...I remember where I saw that theory advanced now: It was in this Paul Krugman article titled <A HREF="http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html" REL="nofollow">The Tax-Cut Con</A>.<BR/><BR/>That article was really interesting, but here's a more succinct version of the theory on <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>"Starving the beast" is an American conservative political strategy which uses budget deficits to attempt to force future reductions in government expenditure, especially spending on socially progressive programs. The term "beast" is used to denote government and the social programs it funds, including publicly-funded health care, welfare, educational financial aid, and Social Security.</I><BR/><BR/>Krugman argues that Republicans are sitting around waiting for a disaster, and because of that they weren't concerned about raising military spending while cutting taxes -- confident that this would bring about said disaster even sooner.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-48965264342533732092007-11-01T07:47:00.000-05:002007-11-01T07:47:00.000-05:00Martin, I think I can help clarify Anonymous' earl...Martin, I think I can help clarify Anonymous' earlier statements a bit. It really does make a kind of sense in the bizarre, twisted neo-con logic.<BR/><BR/>I'll come up with sources to cite later if you want to hear it, but basically the logic of a certain kind of a Republican runs along these lines.<BR/><BR/>1. We spend too much money on social programs, from welfare and social security to education to infrastructure.<BR/>2. Because (axiom) social programs are a waste of money, we would like to drastically their funding.<BR/>3. We can't do that, because they're popular/because those damn Democrats won't let us.<BR/>4. But they couldn't spend money on social programs if there was no money!<BR/>5. So let's spend money like drunken sailors, and while we're at it we can help close friends like Halliburton and Blackwater make a tidy profit.<BR/>6. Eventually we'll achieve massive debt that we won't be able to borrow anymore.<BR/>7. At that point we can say "Whoops! Sorry folks! Can't fund that stuff! Hope you understand, our hands are tied and all."<BR/><BR/>According to one theory, this plan has been in effect since Reagan.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-30160044819783313342007-10-31T22:03:00.000-05:002007-10-31T22:03:00.000-05:00I see no contradiction.Then you must just not be t...<I>I see no contradiction.</I><BR/><BR/>Then you must just not be thinking about the claims you're making. Think about the question I asked: <B>If the government is being highly effective at bleeding us white in taxes and waging an endless war for the benefit of their corporate cronies, how is this an indication that government is getting <I>reduced</I> in size?</B> Would not a <I>reduced</I> government be <I>less</I> effective in pulling those plans off?<BR/><BR/>In case you hadn't noticed, the Bush administration is extremely BIG government.<BR/> <BR/><I>You're jumping to conclusions.</I><BR/><BR/>A profoundly amusing statement. Pot, meet kettle.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-89391546806078939682007-10-31T20:34:00.000-05:002007-10-31T20:34:00.000-05:00I see no contradiction. You're jumping to conclus...I see no contradiction. <BR/>You're jumping to conclusions.<BR/>These are the beginning stages.<BR/>This country has amassed enormous debt and the war only helps to fuel it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-17676722266245876832007-10-31T15:45:00.000-05:002007-10-31T15:45:00.000-05:00The conservative philosophy ala Norquist - reduce ...<I>The conservative philosophy ala Norquist - reduce the size of government so it can be drowned in a bathtub - is being fulfilled with the Iraq war. It is succeeding. They are raping us, stealing our tax dollars to fund a war that seemingly has no end.</I><BR/><BR/>Anon, your last sentence contradicts your first. If the government is being highly effective at bleeding us white in taxes and waging an endless war for the benefit of their corporate cronies, how is this an indication that government is getting <I>reduced</I> in size?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-74008279820919206102007-10-31T13:25:00.000-05:002007-10-31T13:25:00.000-05:00I'm not arguing for the conspiracy theorists, but ...I'm not arguing for the conspiracy theorists, but I do question one of the points you made -<BR/><BR/>re: "Look at Iraq"<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with your premise that the Bush team ever actually wanted to "succeed" in Iraq the way you assume.<BR/><BR/>I would say you should Look at Iraq as a sign that they are competent and have done everything in Iraq exactly as planned.<BR/><BR/>Greeting us with flowers was bullshit from the beginning and they knew it - to think otherwise, or to believe in the democracy domino theory is utterly naive.<BR/><BR/>Look at Iraq : It is a complete success for them. War is a racket. The longer we stay there and the more screwed up their country gets, the more all of the big corporations, good ol boy networkers, etc. will profit from government contracts.<BR/><BR/>The conservative philosophy ala Norquist - reduce the size of government so it can be drowned in a bathtub - is being fulfilled with the Iraq war. It is succeeding. They are raping us, stealing our tax dollars to fund a war that seemingly has no end. The worse off Iraq (and possibly Iran) is, the longer the war lasts, the more money they make. Just follow the money.<BR/><BR/>Watch this very short clip: War Corporatism<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Aml3fj9NoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-22885223381738530322007-10-31T11:46:00.000-05:002007-10-31T11:46:00.000-05:00Al, you're right. I googled the article you were ...Al, you're right. I googled the article you were talking about and found it <A HREF="http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:494046" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>I notice that in the comments, many people accused Louis Black of being scared of his corporate masters. I love the ad hoc explanations they come up with for why people don't agree with them. Because the ONLY possible way anyone could not recognize the genius of these theories is if they are either (a) a part of the conspiracy, or (b) being paid off and/or intimidated by someone who is part of the conspiracy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-87854524389800297322007-10-31T11:11:00.000-05:002007-10-31T11:11:00.000-05:00I think it was Louis Black (Austin Chronicle) who ...I think it was Louis Black (Austin Chronicle) who once pointed out that even if we play devil's advocate.../go WAY out on a limb and ASSUME (just for the sake of argument) that the 9-11 conspiracies are true... two VERY valid questions remain:<BR/>a. can it be proven? (not likely)<BR/>b. have we accomplished anything useful by doing so? -(his assesment, and mine- NO)Allen Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04764799647023692578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-18644071922175841612007-10-31T11:06:00.000-05:002007-10-31T11:06:00.000-05:00The anonymous commenter also demonstrated a very c...The anonymous commenter also demonstrated a very common tactic in using the "false choice" fallacy. "Either you agree with me that 9/11 was an inside job, or you believe everything you hear on CNN and don't believe that any investigations should happen."<BR/><BR/>Do I think there's more to investigate surrounding how and why the attacks occurred? Sure, absolutely. Does that mean I can't still call people nitwits for assuming that the answer is "missiles, not planes"? Of course not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-68290394840021165672007-10-31T08:54:00.000-05:002007-10-31T08:54:00.000-05:00You don't really need to ridicule them Kazim, the ...You don't really need to ridicule them Kazim, the subject materila speaks for itself - now Roswell that's a diferent matter altogether (just kidding)Sean Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14485575602984697926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-9386679520868713092007-10-31T08:31:00.000-05:002007-10-31T08:31:00.000-05:00I'm not sure what's a bigger joke: the conspiracy ...I'm not sure what's a bigger joke: the conspiracy theories themselves, or the fact that people who espouse them call their critics "little sniveling cowards" in <I>anonymous</I> blog comments.<BR/><BR/>Really, they <I>still</I> wonder why we don't take them seriously?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-71935639447442045582007-10-31T03:36:00.000-05:002007-10-31T03:36:00.000-05:00Typical conspiracy theorist attitude "if you don't...Typical conspiracy theorist attitude "if you don't believe exactly what I believe you must have your head in the sand or be a government puppet or mindless TV watching coward". Ever think that maybe we considered it, looked at the evidence and came to the sober conclusion that your evidence was inconsistant and ridiculous and your story was beyond the realms of what anyone could call rational. Where not the ones sticking our head in the sand and refusing to listen, you people are. <BR/> You people are like creationists you have your own little internet hideaways where you can validate each others delusions without being bothered. And just like creationists you only take the word of the "experts" who agree with you, discounting the fact that for every one of these "experts" that agree with you there are thousands upon thousands of much more intelligent experts who absolutely dissagree with you and have the evidence to back it up. There will always be historians who firmly believe the holocaust never happened, there will always be scientists who believe the earth is less that 10,000 years old and there will be structural engineers that believe that the trade center was brought down by explosives.Rhys Halliwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11614055471243806429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-45171220160961808682007-10-30T23:53:00.000-05:002007-10-30T23:53:00.000-05:00Yeah. There are unanswered questions about 9/11. T...Yeah. There are unanswered questions about 9/11. That's why everyone's talking about it. Everyone from complete wackos to competent experts on the issue, like former analysts with the CIA, reputable engineers, people in the military, and people like William Rodriguez who has stressed over and over that the Commission ignored his eyewitness accounts of explosions he saw while using his master key to save lives. Oh, but YOU know SO MUCH more than all those people because YOU watch CNN and YOU read the 9/11 Commission Report. Because, as you say - there's no way that they could ever get away with that, right? Someone would find out, right? Yeah - they have found out. That's why you and I are discussing it. And like other conspiracies in history, some exposed - some not, there are always little sniveling cowards like yourself who refuse to stand up for justice and let it go. So do you think 9/11 should be properly investigated or not? I don't think it matters. Just go back to watching TV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com