Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp

[metamars]

Though not in so many words, Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp, after he had "long resisted" such a viewpoint. See ~ :35 into his Sept. 19 lecture "Deep Politics: How 9/11 Changed America", the second video listed at http://www.911blogger.com/node/18211.

[JimBenArm]

Well, okay, he can move, but he can't borrow my pickup.

[Myriad]

By "though not in so many words," I gather that Peter Dale Scott has not actually said that he believes 9/11 was a MIHOP "inside job," but rather that someone creatively interprets what he does say to suggest that he secretly supports that position.

The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gravy]

He thinks it's the MIHOP camp, but he failed to notice the fresh paint over "FEMA."

[TexasJack]

If he is MIHOP, what difference does it make?

[metamars]

By "though not in so many words," I gather that Peter Dale Scott has not actually said that he believes 9/11 was a MIHOP "inside job," but rather that someone creatively interprets what he does say to suggest that he secretly supports that position.

The significance of this cannot be underestimated.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Did you "gather" your conclusion after you listened to his talk, starting at the specific (:35 minute) point which I indicated? Or did you blithely assume that Scott was not implying anything of the sort?

The significance of your answer to these questions cannot be underestimated.

[Gravy]

The significance of your answer to these questions cannot be underestimated.Then why did you waste everyone's time by asking them?

[metamars]

Then why did you waste everyone's time by asking them?

Good point! Change "underestimated" to "overestimated".

[Myriad]

Did you "gather" your conclusion after you listened to his talk, starting at the specific (:35 minute) point which I indicated? Or did you blithely assume that Scott was not implying anything of the sort?

The significance of your answer to these questions cannot be underestimated.


In that case there's no reason to answer them.

So instead, I'll point out that the meaning of the qualifier "though not in so many words..." is very clear, and if that's not what you meant me to gather from it then you should have used different words. Such as perhaps, "Scott said, '[insert actual quote here].'"

Respectfully,
Myriad

[beachnut]

Though not in so many words, Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp, after he had "long resisted" such a viewpoint. See ~ :35 into his Sept. 19 lecture "Deep Politics: How 9/11 Changed America", the second video listed at http://www.911blogger.com/node/18211.
No evidence, just talk. How do you find these false information experts? Is there a playbook 9/11 truth hands out to enure false information is spread? This is an expert or leader of 9/11 truth?


Below the 0.001 percent membership expert level, 9/11 truth continues at zero evidence.

[Gravy]

metamars, please explain what Peter Dale Scott has to offer that you believe is new and compelling.

Personally, I am shocked that a retired professor and JFK assassination kook would hop on the 9/11 stupid train in order to sell books. This is unprecedented!

[SDC]

Who the heck is... Ah. Looked him up. A poet, retired from the UC Berkeley faculty, with a long history of opposing US foreign policy. Even if he were making some sort of clear statement, why should anyone care?

I thought Metamars had, perhaps, found a scientist or engineer.

[Drudgewire]

Who the heck is... Ah. Looked him up. A poet, retired from the UC Berkeley faculty, with a long history of opposing US foreign policy. Even if he were making some sort of clear statement, why should anyone care?


This is right up there with the Dylan Avery "admission" no plane hit the Pentagon thread. :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

If you ever want to see a hilarious clinic in logical fallacies, read Scott's piece "JFK and 9/11. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4207)"

As long as there are metamarses and Jason Bermases around, there'll be slightly more savvy kooks ready to take their money.

[A W Smith]

If you ever want to see a hilarious clinic in logical fallacies, read Scott's piece "JFK and 9/11. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4207)"

As long as there are metamarses and Jason Bermases around, there'll be slightly more savvy kooks ready to take their money.


Thanks for that,, the transcript is a lot easier for me to speed read through than to listen to him drone on and on in that boring video posted above. I can write faster with a dull pencil than he can talk i swear.


oh and by the way Metamars

welcome to "December 20, 2006"

[calebprime]

Who the heck is... Ah. Looked him up. A poet, retired from the UC Berkeley faculty, with a long history of opposing US foreign policy. Even if he were making some sort of clear statement, why should anyone care?

I thought Metamars had, perhaps, found a scientist or engineer.

Poets are highly regarded for their insistence on the facts and their rock-solid mental equilibriums.

Sylvia Plath wrote an excellent primer on IQ and race, The Bell Curve.

Using a Ouija Board, James Merrill wrote a rigorous treatise on optics, The Changing Light at Sandover.

Robert Frost, in addition to being a poet, was a Road Engineer who worked on ergonomically-improved divergent color coordination to enhance safety.

John Ashbery has this to say about LIHOP:

The room I entered was a dream of this room.
Surely all those feet on the sofa were mine.
The oval portrait
of a dog was me at an early age.
Something shimmers, something is hushed up.

We had macaroni for lunch every day
except Sunday, when a small quail was induced
to be served to us. Why do I tell you these things?
You are not even here.

(italics mine because they're pretty)

[dudalb]

What is it about Literature Professors that makes them so vulnerable when it comes to conspiracy theories and political woo in general?

[Galileo]

Though not in so many words, Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp, after he had "long resisted" such a viewpoint. See ~ :35 into his Sept. 19 lecture "Deep Politics: How 9/11 Changed America", the second video listed at http://www.911blogger.com/node/18211.

This is good news! Peter Dale Scott has impressive credentials. It is quite shocking to me that such a brilliant man took so long to figure out that 9/11 was an inside job, and not just LIHOP.

That's the problem when we have so many people skeptical of conspiracies in the 9/11 Truth movement and so careful with facts, a lot of time people have too much caution.

It's great to see that the ancient Greek ideal of rational thought is alive and well in the 21st century!

[dudalb]

It great to see that the ancient Greek ideal of rational thought is alive and well in the 21st century!

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[A W Smith]

It great to see that the ancient Greek ideal of rational thought is alive and well in the 21st century!


Real rational them Greeks

http://www.mythweb.com/

[Galileo]

Doesn't surprise me that Scott moved over. LIHOP is inherently untenable.

[dudalb]

Doesn't surprise me that Scott moved over. LIHOP is inherently untenable.


LIHOP is less tenable the MIHOP?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

[AZCat]

Poets are highly regarded for their insistence on the facts and their rock-solid mental equilibriums.

Sylvia Plath wrote an excellent primer on IQ and race, The Bell Curve.

Using a Ouija Board, James Merrill wrote a rigorous treatise on optics, The Changing Light at Sandover.

Robert Frost, in addition to being a poet, was a Road Engineer who worked on ergonomically-improved divergent color coordination to enhance safety.

John Ashbery has this to say about LIHOP:

The room I entered was a dream of this room.
Surely all those feet on the sofa were mine.
The oval portrait
of a dog was me at an early age.
Something shimmers, something is hushed up.

We had macaroni for lunch every day
except Sunday, when a small quail was induced
to be served to us. Why do I tell you these things?
You are not even here.

(italics mine because they're pretty)

Don't forget the poem William Carlos Williams penned when he joined the CIT:

so much depends
upon

a flight data
recorder

filled with incongruous
data

beside the burning
pentagon.

[gumboot]

A Poet? A Poet? FFS. Talk about grasping at straws.

In other news, twenty three Chicago hookers have joined the Truth Movement, in a staggering move that has shaken the foundations of the Bush Administration. US Military Forces were put on DEFCON2 last night, and the Governor of Illinois has declared a state of emergency. Stay tuned for the latest on this evolving crisis.

[WildCat]

In other news, twenty three Chicago hookers have joined the Truth Movement
How dare you impugn the reputation of my fine city's hookers by insinuating some of them have joined the truth movement! :mad:

[Travis]

What is it about Literature Professors that makes them so vulnerable when it comes to conspiracy theories and political woo in general?

In my experience Literature Professors view their classes as a chance to indoctrinate their students into some sort of political belief. They thus start reading highly political works and, by virtue of their position of authority, don't have anyone to call them on it as they get more and more radical and detached from reality. Before you know it they're tenured ideologues of some extreme movement.

[AJM8125]

How dare you impugn the reputation of my fine city's hookers by insinuating some of them have joined the truth movement! :mad:

It's OK WC. In a further development the hookers immediately left the truth movement when they determined that none of the truthers could afford their services, not that any of them knew what to do with a hooker in the first place. Several moms had some choice words for the girls, however.

[Walter Ego]

It's OK WC. In a further development the hookers immediately left the truth movement when they determined that none of the truthers could afford their services, not that any of them knew what to do with a hooker in the first place. Several moms had some choice words for the girls, however.


Since this has become a comedy thread, may I summit this video of some Canadian truther dudes and chicks socking it to the Evil Amerikan Empire. (No need to watch the whole thing but don’t miss what the Mohawk dude says at the 1:00 mark). Caution: NSFW language.

0-nishewaFs

Note: When I first saw this video I thought it had to be a parody and left the comment, “This is a comedy routine, right?” My comment and other comments were removed and the comments closed but this comment below remains which just has to be a parody. Right?

This young fellow with the mohawk would make a great on-air personality for you ;)

He manages to take complexities and make them understandable to average people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-nishewaFs

[A W Smith]

I had to stop listening. The stupid would keep me up all night. Was it the tongue piercing that made the two guys lisp or were they imitating Peggy Weggy from the cartoon series "the oblongs' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs#List_of_characters)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YypKBAN7xX8

[Dave Rogers]

LIHOP is less tenable the MIHOP?

I think the phrase should be "even less tenable". One of the few vaguely tenable CT hypotheses, in that although there's no evidence for it whatsoever, there's no obviously compelling evidence against it, is the MIHOP-LITE scenario, in which the only US involvement is that some agent provocateur supported the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks, which otherwise unfolded as we know they did. It has the rare benefit of not being obviously stupid at first sight; it requires a closer look before its stupidity becomes evident.

Dave

[Confuseling]

That could make sense, as could Let Something or Other Happen on Purpose; high level (presumably cross-party) functionaries decide that gradually lowering defences against terrorism is in the long term geo- or internal political interest, and disguise their action as cost cutting or tactical redeployment.

Anything else, I submit, is so wildly implausible as to be worth discounting out of hand.

[Galileo]

LIHOP is less tenable the MIHOP?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

LIHOP is the gateway to MIHOP.

Sort of like marijuana is the gateway drug.

[HyJinX]

LIHOP is the gateway to MIHOP.

Sort of like marijuana is the gateway drug.

Marijuana is the gateway to LIHOP and MIHOP.

[applecorped]

Marijuana is the gateway to LIHOP and MIHOP.

Nominated.

[SDC]

Shouldn't we be taking this calamitous news more seriously? That is, we shills of the New World Order. And that is, calamitous because one of the most important voices of our time may or may not be joining the other side. And also that is, seriously, because this means that the tottering edifice of our collective, oh whatever it is, is now about to teeter into twittering oblivion?

Just my opinion, of course.

[Drudgewire]

Sort of like marijuana is the gateway drug.

Where is this gateway you speak of? And how much are quarters there? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bong.gif

[JimBenArm]

Where is this gateway you speak of? And how much are quarters there? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bong.gif
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279348ff12a21ef9c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14131)

I heard it's in St. Louis.

[Drudgewire]

I heard it's in St. Louis.


That's cool, cuz nobody knew us.
-Ice Cube

[Travis]

Is anyone else quaking in their boots at the prospect of this Truther Mega-Army of poets, theologians, radio hosts and burnt out ex-wrestlers?

[AZCat]

Then of course there's the poet laureate who wrote the following about the towers:

Some say the towers fell from fire;
Some say from thermite.
From what I've seen of corruption
I hold with those who favor eruption (in pyroclastic clouds).
But since they had to do it twice (three times if you count 7),
I think I know enough of thermate
To know that for destruction it
Is also great
And would suffice.

(apologies to Mr. Frost)

[SDC]

Is anyone else quaking in their boots at the prospect of this Truther Mega-Army of poets, theologians, radio hosts and burnt out ex-wrestlers?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[kookbreaker]

Is anyone else quaking in their boots at the prospect of this Truther Mega-Army of poets, theologians, radio hosts and burnt out ex-wrestlers?

Yeah, as soon as they are capable of busting their through that crowd of Eloi I might have to give them a hard stare to disperse them.

[TheDaver]

Mmm, waffles.

Oh, sorry, that’s ihop.

No, wait…

[A W Smith]

Mmm, waffles.

Oh, sorry, that’s ihop.

No, wait…

did you say? Waffles?
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Waffles/

[Galileo]

For everyone out there interested in Peter Dale Scott, I suggest you read his book 'Cocaine Politics'.

The book summarizes all the evidence and proves that the CIA (Cocaine Importing Agency) brought thousands of metric tons of cocaine into the USA.

Hence, the Drug Was is MIHOP also, they Made It Happen On Pupose.

[metamars]

Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.

His political works merely include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_dale_scott)

* The War Conspiracy (1972, out of print)
* The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976, ISBN 0-394-40107-7)
* Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977, ISBN 0-87867-066-1)
* The Iran-Contra Connection (in
collaboration, 1987, ISBN 0-89608-291-1)
* Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998, ISBN 0-520-21449-8)
* Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20519-7)
* Deep Politics Two: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1995, 2007, ISBN 0-9790-0994-4)
* Drugs Oil and War (2003, ISBN 0-7425-2522-8)
* The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America (September 2007, ISBN 0-5202-3773-0)


Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.

[SDC]

Metamars, just because someone has published some books, it doesn't mean automatically that they are worth reading. From a quick perusal of PDS' ouevre (did I get that right?), he is, regardless of poetic sensibilities or diplomatic experience, someone who sees wicked Yankee conspiracies everywhere. That sort of character is merely silly.

What you are saying is that others don't see what you think you see. Welcome to the real world; that is how it works.

ETA: you also seem impressed by the fact that his books have actual ISBN's. As someone in a wing of the book business, let me assure you that that doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

[Nick Terry]

In my experience Literature Professors view their classes as a chance to indoctrinate their students into some sort of political belief. They thus start reading highly political works and, by virtue of their position of authority, don't have anyone to call them on it as they get more and more radical and detached from reality. Before you know it they're tenured ideologues of some extreme movement.

Now HERE'S something worth discussing and squabbling about. Can we trace back the root failing to postmodernism, or imbibing too much Jameson the theorist as opposed to Jameson's whiskey? Possibly, but more likely is the fact that English professors deal in fiction, which they then take as representative of current or past reality, in varying strange fashions. Theologians and other humanities types are likewise hooked on exegesis. To them, texts are things that can be manipulated and twisted, in some cases more than 180 degrees around.

Throw in the usual student silence in the face of The Professor, as Travis observes, and the kooky tenured radical never gets to experience real criticism, since their extracurricular conspiracising will be conducted largely in an echo chamber of adulation (cf the theologian Griffin, now retired and thus cut off from the danger of being criticised anyhow).

There's probably a future PhD in this for someone: why humanities professors spout bollocks. You can start with the preceding generation of crusty extreme right types like Revilo P Oliver (classics), Austin App (English) and Robert Faurisson (French literature), and then move on to the philosophers (Fetzer) and theologians (Griffin).

And ultimately: why do these guys (almost always guys, nota bene) think they can get away with instant-expert status in fields that they have absolutely no experience in and no real knowledge of?

[Patriot4life]

Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"?

Apparently, this:

"Metamars, just because someone has published some books, it doesn't mean automatically that they are worth reading. From a quick perusal of PDS' ouevre (did I get that right?), he is, regardless of poetic sensibilities or diplomatic experience, someone who sees wicked Yankee conspiracies everywhere. That sort of character is merely silly."

Actually SDC the sort of character that is merely silly is one that makes rash assumptions based on a quick perusal of another's oeuvre.

This type of mentality is pervasive around here and some of the other subforums at JREF. I think the single track mind of debunking sometimes gets in the way of forming an objective viewpoint. Which would obviously entail reading political works from as many perspectives as one can.

Unfortunately, PDS is in a rather small group of historians/researchers that adresses the concept/reality of 'deep politics'. We obviously know that deep politics exists, just not how much of an impact these types of political structures have on overt/open politics.

I have read, the road to 9/11 and Drugs, Oil and War. Both insightful books that only increase ones knowledge on the subject "9/11." I personally didn't interperet PDS's position to be that of a 'conspiracy kook' or 'wicked yankee conspiracist' but then again, I have actually read some of his work. I would think that actually reading someone's work would be a prerequisite to making a characterization about him/her.

To be fair, MikeW has made a concious effort to refute certain stances that PDS took in his book "road to 9/11." Mainly concerning the whole "Mineta contradictions." He has made good points that, IMO, remain a good critical analysis of a chapter or two from "Road to 9/11". I do, however, think that more information is needed to fully elucidate the "Mineta Contradiction".

I would be happy to discuss some of the specifics of his books (at least the ones that I have read).

[SDC]

I could quote Koheleth /Ecclesiastics again, but think I will skip it. The point being that there is a ton of stuff being published, and to quote the eminent Science Fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, 95% of everything is crap.

Even Scott's mere list of titles, and the things you say about him, and the little I've read about him, set off my horse-puckey alarms. He clearly falls on the 95% side, at least for history and current events. (For all I know, he's the best Canadian poet since, oh, Rbt Service.)

First, there are too many interesting things to read. Second, 9/11 is exactly what it appears, not some fantasy. I don't need to read something in the 95% to understand that.

ETA: I am so, like, totally ashamed of myself, and I snivel and grovel in embarrassment. Sturgeon actually referred to 90%, not 95.

[Corsair 115]

Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say. It would seem his diplomatic service was rather undistinguished, since I've never heard of the guy, and I live in the country in question.

Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.

[dudalb]

All Dale Scott did was apply the Deconstructionist "Deep Structure" school of Literature (which I personally think is among the biggest bunch of BS ever to gain academic acceptence) and apply it to politics, with predictable results.

[Galileo]

Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.

His political works merely include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_dale_scott)

* The War Conspiracy (1972, out of print)
* The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976, ISBN 0-394-40107-7)
* Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977, ISBN 0-87867-066-1)
* The Iran-Contra Connection (in
collaboration, 1987, ISBN 0-89608-291-1)
* Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998, ISBN 0-520-21449-8)
* Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20519-7)
* Deep Politics Two: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1995, 2007, ISBN 0-9790-0994-4)
* Drugs Oil and War (2003, ISBN 0-7425-2522-8)
* The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America (September 2007, ISBN 0-5202-3773-0)


Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.

Good work. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who opposes mass murder and drug dealing by the CIA.

[Gravy]

Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say. metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?

[Galileo]

metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.

[JihadJane]

...deleted...

[Mince]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

Linky no worky.




This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.


Cite please.

[dtugg]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.

Well, if it is in the Journal of 9/11 Stundies, it must be true. Honestly I trust the 9/11 Commission more than some poet with a penchant for believing and writing about conspiracy theories.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

[...]

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.


That all happened in a mere 10 minutes...?

[metamars]

It would seem his diplomatic service was rather undistinguished, since I've never heard of the guy, and I live in the country in question.

I live in the US, and can't name a single US diplomat. Even though I spend time on political blogs. Gee, imagine that (http://www.boxxet.com/Howard_Stern/video:harlem-100-for-sarah-palin/).


This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.

Whatsamatta U? Reading comprehension problems? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4131938&postcount=172)

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.

[dtugg]

I live in the US, and can't name a single US diplomat. Even though I spend time on political blogs.

You've never heard of Condi Rice?

[metamars]

metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.

Maybe, if you're lucky, one of the JREF "critical thinkers" will use their awesome powers of intellect, and play devil's advocate. Finding such a person, who isn't drunk on the JREF whine, will probably be difficult....

[metamars]

You've never heard of Condi Rice?

Yes, she's Secretary of State. Does that make her a diplomat?

[dtugg]

Yes, she's Secretary of State. Does that make her a diplomat?

Yes. The highest diplomat in the country save for maybe the President.

[dtugg]

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.

Maybe, if you're lucky, one of the JREF "critical thinkers" will use their awesome powers of intellect, and play devil's advocate. Finding such a person, who isn't drunk on the JREF whine, will probably be difficult....

The reason that JREF is hostile to twoofers is because they have no evidence for their claims and are stupid and/or crazy to the last one.

BTW, how do you reconcile what your hero Noam Chomsky says about 9/11 (he says it wasn't MIHOP or LIHOP) with your beliefs?

[Björn Toulouse]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55............



Sometimes old men need to use the privy.

Excuse me - brb.

[Corsair 115]

Whatsamatta U? Reading comprehension problems? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4131938&postcount=172)

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.Semantic evasions.

You still haven't explained why the CBC and The Toronto Star are not leaping to tell the tale of the conspiracists. You just keep insisting something suspicious is going on without ever bothering to offer even a shred of tangible evidence.

[MikeW]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.
Ah, a useful link for everyone to see exactly how little substance he provides. Well, the real link is, anyway - click here for the document (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottWhyCheneyMustTestify.pdf).

[sleahead]

I skimmed through that link and what did I find?

A celebrated example of prompt interception was with the crippled airplane of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, which had fighter aircrafton its wingtips soon after it was observed erring off course.68

Oh Lordie....

[Travis]

I skimmed through that link and what did I find?

A celebrated example of prompt interception was with the crippled airplane of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, which had fighter aircrafton its wingtips soon after it was observed erring off course.68

Oh Lordie....

Anyone dumb enough to use that as evidence has just destroyed all credibility of their writing and for themselves. Anyone using Peter Dale Scott as a source for anything from here on out will be laughed at for long periods of time.

[metamars]

Semantic evasions.

You still haven't explained why the CBC and The Toronto Star are not leaping to tell the tale of the conspiracists. You just keep insisting something suspicious is going on without ever bothering to offer even a shred of tangible evidence.

Semantic evasions, eh?

Tell you what, why don't you ask Professor Chomsky why the Star didn't do a front-page series on President Bush as a war criminal. Googling 'site:thestar.com Bush Zubaydah' yields all of 6 hits. Those articles don't contain the term "war criminal".. (I'll guess that the CBC will yield similar results). Report back to us what he tells you, won't you? And please don't forget to ask him about the big conspiracy which prevented the Star from even posing the question as an editorial. Finally, don't forget to grace us with your expert, well thought out opinion as to whether Chomsky's answer is a "semantic evasion". It's always delightful to see the the deep thoughts of a JREF "debunker" put on display.....

(Also: Googling 'site:thestar.com "war crime" Zubaydah' yields 0 hits.)

If a newspaper won't connect those dots, even as a hypothesis to be explored in a freakin' editorial, why on God's green earth would anybody expect them to fund a serious investigation of 911, which especially attempts to follow up leads likely to yield a version contradictory to the US Government fairy tale(s)? You know, like investigating the non-Muslim, non-Arab associates of Mohammed Atta? (BTW, googling 'site:thestar.com atta' yields all of 4 pages; what kind of a rag is this? They don't even seem interested in the officially approved narratives of 9/11!)

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.

Happily, the realnews.com interviewed him just the other day. They've been in existence maybe 3 years. Could it be a coincidence that therealnews.com accepts no advertising, and no government funds?

[Gravy]

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.Just as I thought: once again you've started a thread but can't explain why. Please stop doing that. It just creates noise.

If you can't explain why something matters, why in the world should anyone else care?

[Gravy]

Semantic evasions, eh?

Tell you what, why don't you ask Professor Chomsky why the Star didn't do a front-page series on President Bush as a war criminal. Googling 'site:thestar.com Bush Zubaydah' yields all of 6 hits. Those articles don't contain the term "war criminal".. (I'll guess that the CBC will yield similar results). Report back to us what he tells you, won't you? And please don't forget to ask him about the big conspiracy which prevented the Star from even posing the question as an editorial. Finally, don't forget to grace us with your expert, well thought out opinion as to whether Chomsky's answer is a "semantic evasion". It's always delightful to see the the deep thoughts of a JREF "debunker" put on display.....

(Also: Googling 'site:thestar.com "war crime" Zubaydah' yields 0 hits.)

If a newspaper won't connect those dots, even as a hypothesis to be explored in a freakin' editorial, why on God's green earth would anybody expect them to fund a serious investigation of 911, which especially attempts to follow up leads likely to yield a version contradictory to the US Government fairy tale(s)? You know, like investigating the non-Muslim, non-Arab associates of Mohammed Atta? (BTW, googling 'site:thestar.com atta' yields all of 4 pages; what kind of a rag is this? They don't even seem interested in the officially approved narratives of 9/11!)

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.

Happily, the realnews.com interviewed him just the other day. They've been in existence maybe 3 years. Could it be a coincidence that therealnews.com accepts no advertising, and no government funds?


Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 "truth" movement":

My reasons for giving this low priority are simple: it has been draining enormous energy away from work on far more serious crimes of the administration against the US population and the world (which is why, I suspect, it is getting such a tolerant reception in the mainstream, dramatically different from the hysterical abuse and slanders that are elicited at once by anything directed to real power interests). That would be sufficient reason to give it low priority.

Further reason is that to evaluate the alleged evidence requires the kind of expert knowledge that can’t be picked up from surfing the internet: it requires substantial understanding of civil/mechanical engineering, the specific characteristics of the building, evaluation of photos, etc., and I don’t see dropping what I’m doing and taking off a great deal of time to pick up the requisite background and evalute the evidence. And a story will also have to be told about the planes and passengers, the massive cover-up involving huge numbers of people and (miraculously) no leaks, and why the administration would have been so utterly insane as to try something like this (which hasn’t the remotest analogue in history).

But those considerations aside, the vasts amount of energy being poured into this has been quite harmful to activism on serious and urgent issues—hence the relevance of the speculations based on the declassification documents.How do you respond to these statements by your hero, Mr. Chomsky, metamars?

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.Are you actually incapable of typing "Noam Chomsky PBS" in a Google search box, or are you just too lazy? Either way, you scream "I'm completely incompetent" with every post you make. I know that being anonymous saves you public embarrassment, but don't you have any personal sense of shame at all? What do you gain by your deliberate ignorance?

[Corsair 115]

Semantic evasions, eh? ...
I snipped the rest of your post because it's the same old thing. Your hand waving and raising of irrelevant points does not answer the question I originally posed.

Once again, please answer the following in detail:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Can you offer even one shred of tangible material that does not involve opinion writing?

[metamars]

Just as I thought: once again you've started a thread but can't explain why. Please stop doing that. It just creates noise.

If you can't explain why something matters, why in the world should anyone else care?

"can't" <> won't invest scarce time explaining


dictionary.reference.com is your friend

[metamars]

Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 "truth" movement":

How do you respond to these statements by your hero, Mr. Chomsky, metamars?



I've already addressed the peculiar blind spot of Professor Chomsky to 911, on this very forum. The search function is your friend, also.


Are you actually incapable of typing "Noam Chomsky PBS" in a Google search box, or are you just too lazy? Either way, you scream "I'm completely incompetent" with every post you make. I know that being anonymous saves you public embarrassment, but don't you have any personal sense of shame at all? What do you gain by your deliberate ignorance?

Have you corrected references to the illogical and fallacious (in the sense of being unphysical) Bazant Zhou paper from your 911 "debunking" documents? If not, that screams rather loudly for something other than "complete incompetence", but even less flattering, I should think.

Oh, and how many interviews of Chomsky on PBS do you count?

[dtugg]

"can't" <> won't invest scarce time explaining


dictionary.reference.com is your friend

So, if you won't explain, why should anybody else care what you say?

Also, why again is it that your apparent hero, Noam Chomsky, thinks that 9/11 Twoof is bs?

[metamars]

I snipped the rest of your post because it's the same old thing. Your hand waving and raising of irrelevant points does not answer the question I originally posed.

Once again, please answer the following in detail:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Can you offer even one shred of tangible material that does not involve opinion writing?


Gee whiz, it's a good thing you informed me that I was hand-waving. Otherwise, I would have thought that I'd completely destroyed the premise of your nonsense:


This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.

Before I waste any more time with you, why don't you inform us whether or not you think Chomsky was "hand waving" in presenting his arguments in Necessary Illusions. BTW, this book has over 700 references.

Also, do tell us, won't you, whether or not you think Chomsky was lying when he explictly denied references to his notions of media distortion, by a critic of his, as a "conspiracy".

Believe it or not, if it turns out that you deem Chomsky to be a liar, who writes 'hand waving" books, with 700+ references, on media distortion, I just may conclude that it is you who is irrational, and thus not worth 1 more second of my time.

[SDC]

Metamars, shouldn't you stop wasting your scarce and valuable time, and get going on your 9/11 wiki? Don't you have a sense of urgency about that? What is the point in wasting your s. and v. time with the likes of the losers 'round here?

[JihadJane]

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.


The rigid black and white, conspiracy-theory thinking employed by many "debunkers" on this site makes this distinction impossible to comprehend.

[metamars]

Metamars, shouldn't you stop wasting your scarce and valuable time, and get going on your 9/11 wiki? Don't you have a sense of urgency about that? What is the point in wasting your s. and v. time with the likes of the losers 'round here?

This is a public forum. Despite the whining "debunkers", who, for one reason or another, are simply incapable of seeing through the defects of their arguments and viewpoints (or unwilling), it's reasonable to assume that there a lurkers who are more reasonable.

If the only people who ever read these posts were debunkers and truthers, there'd be far less point to them.

BTW, I have no intention of filling out a debate wiki. I'm more interested in building the plumbing, but then only if it makes sense in terms of my career goals. When I need your, or anybody else's, input on how I prioritize my time, I'll let you know.

[CptColumbo]

Wow! Peter Dale Scott!

The Peter Dale Scott?

I can't believe that Peter Dale Scott is "moving into the MIHOP camp."









...

Who the heck is Peter Dale Scott and why should I care what camp he's in?

Does his expertise trump -for example- http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9?

[metamars]

The rigid black and white, conspiracy-theory thinking employed by many "debunkers" on this site makes this distinction impossible to comprehend.

Yeah, it's something to behold, isn't it? You can observe similar partisan rigidity and fanaticism (not to mention nastiness) at other forums, such at democraticunderground.com, when you present an idea which doesn't meet with the herd's approval, but even so, it's particularly inappropriate in a forum which is supposed to be friendly to critical thinking.

Maybe that's my problem. The subtitle of the forum actually says,

"a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way".

It doesn't say "employ ... critical thinking", it says "discuss ... critical thinking".

Besides the very human tendency to run with the herd (whatever herd one is identified with, or employed by), I do believe that debunkers are being misled by some of their 'leaders' or opinion makers, who are doing so deliberately. You can search for a post (or maybe two) of mine on Rupert Sheldrake's encounter with a 'professional' debunker. Also, Paul LaViolette reported a conversation he participated in, in which a reporter told him that an agency of the US government (I think it was the Commerce Department, but I don't recall, exactly) would actually offer to instruct reporters on 'debunking' certain science topics. (Or non-science, as the case may be.)

If you listen to Chomsky's CD, 'Propaganda and Control of the public mind', he gets into how much $$ industry pumps into school course material. It was a stunning figure (in fact, so stunning that I have a problem believing it, though it may have only been true in the period after WW2). IIRC, he had been discussing information from the book Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60.

[funk de fino]

The rigid black and white, conspiracy-theory thinking employed by many "debunkers" on this site makes this distinction impossible to comprehend.

Some of us do not have to think too hard or too black and white to make a fool of your claims in a thread.

[TexasJack]

Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason the media hasn't covered 911 CTs, is maybe because they have no merit?

[MarkyX]

Besides the very human tendency to run with the herd (whatever herd one is identified with, or employed by)


You're saying this to a group mainly comprised of Atheists who don't believe in the supernatural ( ghosts, psychics, big foot, etc )

[JihadJane]

Some of us do not have to think too hard or too black and white to make a fool of your claims in a thread.

I've yet to see evidence of this. Perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by showing how easily you can differentiate between "media-controlling conspiracy" and "media-filtering non-conspiracy".

[funk de fino]

I've yet to see evidence of this. Perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by showing how easily you can differentiate between "media-controlling conspiracy" and "media-filtering non-conspiracy".


I made a fool of your 7/7 claims, you had to run away

[metamars]

I made a fool of your 7/7 claims, you had to run away

Please take this dispute elsewhere.

[Corsair 115]

Gee whiz, it's a good thing you informed me that I was hand-waving. Otherwise, I would have thought that I'd completely destroyed the premise of your nonsense:

Before I waste any more time with you, why don't you inform us whether or not you think Chomsky was "hand waving" in presenting his arguments in Necessary Illusions. BTW, this book has over 700 references.

Also, do tell us, won't you, whether or not you think Chomsky was lying when he explictly denied references to his notions of media distortion, by a critic of his, as a "conspiracy".

Believe it or not, if it turns out that you deem Chomsky to be a liar, who writes 'hand waving" books, with 700+ references, on media distortion, I just may conclude that it is you who is irrational, and thus not worth 1 more second of my time.Evasion noted. It is quite revealing that you cannot answer the straightforward questions posed.

Once again:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Answering the above questions, and providing tangible evidence to support your answers, is of necessity if you wish to get anyone to believe your position. So, please, present your answers and the evidence which supports them. I trust it's something more substantial than just referencing Noam Chomsky again.

You have a golden opportunity to present your case and sway people to your point of view. You need only answer the relevant questions and support those answers with some verifiable evidence. Why are you not seizing this opportunity?

[metamars]

Evasion noted. It is quite revealing that you cannot answer the straightforward questions posed.

Once again:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Answering the above questions, and providing tangible evidence to support your answers, is of necessity if you wish to get anyone to believe your position. So, please, present your answers and the evidence which supports them. I trust it's something more substantial than just referencing Noam Chomsky again.

You have a golden opportunity to present your case and sway people to your point of view. You need only answer the relevant questions and support those answers with some verifiable evidence. Why are you not seizing this opportunity?

Anybody who is seriously interested in why I consider Chomsky, Barrie Zwicker, etc., credible on the subject of media distortion and inaction is just going to have to read them. It's not my job to hold their hands. I wouldn't necessarily mind using the forum as a means of teaching, but that's not my priority. If that doesn't suit you, that's just too bad.

That doesn't mean that I'll never again go into some of their works and details of their arguments. In fact, before I shelved Zwicker's Towers of Deception, I had marked off additional sections that I intended to post here at JREF. However, that wasn't a priority when I shelved the book, and it certainly isn't now.

As for the question of why, after already having accepting a Chomsky-like viewpoint, I find the application of his general viewpoint applicable to the specific case of 911 to be valid (even if Chomsky, himself, doesn't go there), I consider this self-evident. Basically, the same forces that mitigate against forcefully challenging political power structures are there wrt both 911 and, say, the question of GW Bush being a war criminal.

Since you couldn't trouble yourself to answer a couple of simple questions of mine, while wanting me to spend great gobs of my own time holding your hand (even if you didn't realize that that's what you're asking for), and since you don't seem to listen very well, it's off to my ignore list you go. Your evasion of my simple questions is duly noted, and congratulations - you're my first ignore-lister at JREF. I suggest that, in your dealings with other posters in the future, if you don't want to make it to their ignore lists, you keep the principle of reciprocity in mind, and don't be overly presumptuous of what you think they owe you, in terms of commitments of their time.

[SDC]

Hey, Metamars, Chomsky said your posts are silly. How 'bout that?

[A W Smith]

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.



yet you have seemings endless amounts of time to go on and on about your WIKI debate which no one is paying attention to. You post meaningless drivel and threads that say a lot of nothing. When asked to make your point you cannot. Post your vapid nonsense elsewhere as you are wasting our time.

[metamars]

Hey, Metamars, Chomsky said your posts are silly. How 'bout that?

Wow! Did he mention me by name?

[JihadJane]

yet you have seemings endless amounts of time to go on and on about your WIKI debate which no one is paying attention to. You post meaningless drivel and threads that say a lot of nothing. When asked to make your point you cannot. Post your vapid nonsense elsewhere as you are wasting our time.

Sometimes what appears to be a lot of nothing is actually a foreign language that we don't understand.

[JimBenArm]

Sometimes what appears to be a lot of nothing is actually a foreign language that we don't understand.
And sometimes it actually is a lot of nothing.

[JihadJane]

How are we ever going to tell?

[A W Smith]

How are we ever going to tell?
Awaiting your translation jane.:rolleyes:

[metamars]

If there's a Herman & Chomsky Propaganda Model Heaven in Cyberspace, this may be it (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_Model).

[Corsair 115]

Anybody who is seriously interested in why I consider Chomsky, Barrie Zwicker, etc., credible on the subject of media distortion and inaction is just going to have to read them. It's not my job to hold their hands. This does not answer the questions I asked. No evidence has been provided.

That doesn't mean that I'll never again go into some of their works and details of their arguments. Someone arguing something is true does not make the argument true. Evidence is required to support the argument. Please provide tangible evidence and not just opinion pieces.

As for the question of why, after already having accepting a Chomsky-like viewpoint, I find the application of his general viewpoint applicable to the specific case of 911 to be valid (even if Chomsky, himself, doesn't go there), I consider this self-evident. Basically, the same forces that mitigate against forcefully challenging political power structures are there wrt both 911 and, say, the question of GW Bush being a war criminal. Your response is vague and lacks the necessary detail to support your argument. Please provide tangible evidence to support your position that media across the globe are being controlled and/or persuaded to ignore 9/11 conspiracy stories.

Since you couldn't trouble yourself to answer a couple of simple questions of mine, while wanting me to spend great gobs of my own time holding your hand (even if you didn't realize that that's what you're asking for), and since you don't seem to listen very well, it's off to my ignore list you go. Your evasion of my simple questions is duly noted, and congratulations - you're my first ignore-lister at JREF. I suggest that, in your dealings with other posters in the future, if you don't want to make it to their ignore lists, you keep the principle of reciprocity in mind, and don't be overly presumptuous of what you think they owe you, in terms of commitments of their time. As is quite typical of 9/11 conspiracists, when challenged to present tangible evidence to support their claims, they elect to blame the questioner for daring to ask for such evidence. They complain about the questioner and put them on ignore rather than offer their evidence.

It's a rather odd way of supporting their case, isn't it? You'd think they'd be overjoyed and most eager to provide their earth-shattering evidence which proves their point and makes the questioner look foolish.


Astute obsevers will also note that metamars has yet again written many words while saying nothing of consequence nor answering a single one of the relevant questions that has been put to him. This is very telling indeed.

[JihadJane]

This does not answer the questions I asked. No evidence has been provided.

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description.

Experience is the best teacher.

[metamars]

If there's a Herman & Chomsky Propaganda Model Heaven in Cyberspace, this may be it (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_Model).

One of the papers linked to at this website (http://s31076.gridserver.com/assets-managed/pdf/LeftProgressiveMediaInsideth_PropagandaModel.pdf), Left Progressive Media Inside the Propaganda Model, by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, gets into the question of the bias shown by the left "alternative media", with a view of considering any observed bias from the point of view of the Chomsky/Herman propaganda model. Unfortunately, after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10), the 'investigation' of the details of this bias gets all of about 1 page of woefully skimpy quotes from members and observers of the left media, starting on p.11. Furthermore, the conclusion consists of a single, 3 sentence paragraph. :

Based on the evidence presented we conclude that media concentration, PR consolidation, and post-9/11 sensitivities have all contributed to the continuation of strong support for the propaganda model theory as a significant way to understand corporate media in the US. We understand also that this theory may contribute to the news story selection process inside the left liberal media as well. Further investigation of this evidence will likely continue to develop over the next decade of media research.


The 1st sentence is certainly not contested by me, but is of little interest, since I consider main stream media all but hopeless*, and the the points listed obvious. The second sentence is interesting, but basically restates the question! That's what this paper hopefully would have elucidated.

It's the last sentence that makes this paper worth pointing to, together with the very fact that the right questions are being asked.

* Justice cries out for it to be replaced, rather than reformed. Significant reform is impossible, since it serves it's elite masters so well. By 'replaced', I mean that the public has to deliberately turn away from it, not that legislation must put it to an end.

[SDC]

Wow! Did he mention me by name?

No, of course not. To say things a little more clearly, Chomsky has said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong and a waste of time and effort; as you yourself have acknowledged, I believe. Weren't you the poster who, some time ago, said he was sure he could convince Chomsky otherwise, by the way? Maybe you'd better stick to the likes of Scott, who, even at his best, is rather more a lightweight than Chomsky. Or even Nim Chimpsky.

I brought up the 9/11 wiki idea not because I was trying to distract you from working on plumbing. I thought you were investigating setting one up and taking the argument there. So I guess that idea didn't pan out.

ETA: ps This is not a "public forum." It's a private one.

[SDC]

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description.

Experience is the best teacher.

In 1967-68, I attended huge anti-Vietnam war rallies in New York and outside Washington, DC. (Hey, I saw Norman Mailer get arrested outside the Pentagon.) Also the 1973 counter-inaugural.

All were and remain quite recognizable from media and historical accounts.

Experience is only a good teacher if you make use of it.

[metamars]

after doing a decent job summarizing the case that there is such a bias, (see table on p. 10),

I should have mentioned that this table displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related.

Out of these 20 grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists'. (Other possible ratings were:

No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage

)

[metamars]

No, of course not. To say things a little more clearly, Chomsky has said that 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong and a waste of time and effort; as you yourself have acknowledged, I believe.

He's entitled to his opinion. However, I'd like to know hear his opinion of Peter Phillips' work and, specifically, his take on the table summarizing left media bias that I just mentioned. I'd also like to see him answer Barrie Zwicker's points that he raised in his chapter in Towers of Deception called The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left.

Frankly, as far as I can see, he basically ducks the issue of 911 (e.g., dismissing contrary information as "rumours") and I'll bet he'll also duck the issue of left media bias. He may be a good guy, and brilliant, but that doesn't make him perfect. Critical thinking and hero-worship are antithetical - I'm sure Chomsky himself would be the first to agree with this principle.

Weren't you the poster who, some time ago, said he was sure he could convince Chomsky otherwise, by the way?
Nope. I said I would ask Chomsky about investigating media bias by interviewing the players. He wasn't impressed with that notion, but he didn't dissuade me, either. I said I would post his answer to me verbatim, and I did.


Maybe you'd better stick to the likes of Scott, who, even at his best, is rather more a lightweight than Chomsky. Or even Nim Chimpsky. Maybe you'd better get your fact straight, before giving advice based on non-facts.


I brought up the 9/11 wiki idea not because I was trying to distract you from working on plumbing. I thought you were investigating setting one up and taking the argument there. So I guess that idea didn't pan out.
Before something doesn't "pan out", somebody has to take a serious crack at it. I often share ideas in forums that I think might be useful to somebody, somewhere. I don't think I've actually worked on any of them, though I still want to take a crack at at least the media replacement system that I explicated in a multi-page proposal. I had hoped to have also taken a crack at a voting verification system (via online legal testaments, with id verification via a small charge to credit card), but that didn't happen, either.


ETA: ps This is not a "public forum." It's a private one.
It can be publicly viewed by anybody, and anybody can post who agrees to the TOS. The TOS are not so restrictive that thinking of JREF as a public forum seems wrong, though I suppose that you're technically correct. It takes just a couple of minutes to sign up, and it's free, and it thereafter becomes easier to access this 'private' forum than it does to leave one's house to walk down a public street.

I.e., it's public in any sense that matters to me.

[SDC]

Nope. I said I would ask Chomsky about investigating media bias by interviewing the players. He wasn't impressed with that notion, but he didn't dissuade me, either. I said I would post his answer to me verbatim, and I did.

Maybe you'd better get your fact straight, before giving advice based on non-facts.




Cut by me for the purpose of asking: could you provide a link to the answer? I don't recall reading it.

As for the rules of "giving advice," hey, I'm the parent of a teenager. I give advice that is ignored multiple times every day.

[240-185]

Experience is the best teacher.

Wut? Like Jean-Pierre Petit (FR) (http://www.jp-petit.org/), you want to fly one more time a "used" Boeing 757 into the damaged side of the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

[JihadJane]

All were and remain quite recognizable from media and historical accounts.

Experience is only a good teacher if you make use of it.

Fair enough. That certainly hasn't been my experience of political activism and subsequent reporting of it.

As an aside, reporting on the attack on Iraq confirmed my perceptions of unselfconscious media distortion.

[TexasJack]

He's entitled to his opinion.


Which leads to the question, if 911 CTs have no merit, as Chomsky implies, why should the media cover it?

[metamars]

Which leads to the question, if 911 CTs have no merit, as Chomsky implies, why should the media cover it?

If 911 CTs have merit, as Peter Phillips and Project Censored imply, why should Chomsky duck it, and the media not cover it?

Most maddening of all, though, are CT factoids that could relatively easily be confirmed or disconfirmed, if even a modest amount of organization and right effort was to be had. I'm thinking of some of Daniel Hopsicker's work. I'd much rather see some other entities do gumshoe investigations, rather than just report on his claims, and pretentious skeptics of those same claims. What, exactly, would be the point of having a reporter interview Hopsicker, on the one hand, and contemporaneously interview, e.g., a Chomsky, who will dismiss any of his findings as a "rumour", on the other? I want to see verification. Or disconfirmation. Whatever the case may be.

Frankly, the biggest culprit here is the 911 truth movement. I take it as axiomatic that the main stream media is hopeless, and left gatekeeping will make sure that certain taboo subjects won't be seriously covered by the left media, also. I expect such continuing failures. What excuse does the 911 Truth movement have?

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information that would require state power to do so (a point that "debunkers" habitually ignore; gee, I wonder why?), a lot of Hopsicker's factoids don't have this constraint.

[metamars]

Fair enough. That certainly hasn't been my experience of political activism and subsequent reporting of it.

As an aside, reporting on the attack on Iraq confirmed my perceptions of unselfconscious media distortion.

Democracy Now covered the shoddy coverage of a huge anti-war demonstration (pre-Iraq invasion) in NYC by the NY Times. They so undercounted the amount of protestors, that it begs credulity to view this as a mistake. The NY Times lied.

[SDC]

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information that would require state power to do so (a point that "debunkers" habitually ignore; gee, I wonder why?), a lot of Hopsicker's factoids don't have this constraint.

Cut by me to this. Speaking for myself, I see no need for "state power" to continue the investigations. I think the investigations which have been done have settled the 9/11 matter. The "Truthers" may use this as an excuse for their own inability to discover or learn, of course, but that is a mere excuse. If 9/11 were really LIHOP, MIHOP, or IHOP, or any variation thereof, either 1/ someone would rat on the conspiracy for gain or fame, or 2/ someone would rat on the conspiracy for the sake of his/ her conscience.

There is no "there" there, subpoena power or no. But go ahead and organize your own investigation; just don't demand official support, or public money. If it is worth doing, then it should be done by your effort and your dollar. (I've seen you use UK spelling, so maybe it would be the Canadian dollar, but that currency is just fine, too.)

[beachnut]

If 911 CTs have merit, ...

Most maddening of all, though, are CT factoids that could relatively easily be confirmed or disconfirmed, ... ? I want to see verification. Or disconfirmation. Whatever the case may be.

Frankly, the biggest culprit here is the 911 truth movement.

While we can't blame the 911 truth movement for not verifying information ...

There is zero merit in anything from 9/11 truth. They have the same credibility problems you have.

All the factoids of 9/11 truth (usually hearsay and fantasy) have been refuted.

The 9/11 truth movement is a culprit, they spread false information. They have as much evidence as you have; zero.

9/11 truth must verify their own ideas! No government help is required. The only thing they will find by verifications is, their ideas are false, hearsay, and lies.

To refute this broad truth, please present some evidence. But you just posted the truth, you and 9/11 truth are evidence free on 9/11 issues.


Scott's problem, believing false ideas on 9/11 and making up stupid conclusions, can be blamed on his age and, or his political biases negating and overwhelming his rational thought processes.

[calebprime]

Good work. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who opposes mass murder and drug dealing by the CIA.

I, for one, warmly embrace our mass murdering, drug-dealing overlords.


Yeah, it's something to behold, isn't it? You can observe similar partisan rigidity and fanaticism (not to mention nastiness) at other forums, such at democraticunderground.com, when you present an idea which doesn't meet with the herd's approval, but even so, it's particularly inappropriate in a forum which is supposed to be friendly to critical thinking.

Maybe that's my problem. The subtitle of the forum actually says,

"a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way".

It doesn't say "employ ... critical thinking", it says "discuss ... critical thinking".

Besides the very human tendency to run with the herd (whatever herd one is identified with, or employed by), I do believe that debunkers are being misled by some of their 'leaders' or opinion makers, who are doing so deliberately. You can search for a post (or maybe two) of mine on Rupert Sheldrake's encounter with a 'professional' debunker. Also, Paul LaViolette reported a conversation he participated in, in which a reporter told him that an agency of the US government (I think it was the Commerce Department, but I don't recall, exactly) would actually offer to instruct reporters on 'debunking' certain science topics. (Or non-science, as the case may be.)

If you listen to Chomsky's CD, 'Propaganda and Control of the public mind', he gets into how much $$ industry pumps into school course material. It was a stunning figure (in fact, so stunning that I have a problem believing it, though it may have only been true in the period after WW2). IIRC, he had been discussing information from the book Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60.

Anybody who is seriously interested in why I consider Chomsky, Barrie Zwicker, etc., credible on the subject of media distortion and inaction is just going to have to read them. It's not my job to hold their hands. I wouldn't necessarily mind using the forum as a means of teaching, but that's not my priority. If that doesn't suit you, that's just too bad.

That doesn't mean that I'll never again go into some of their works and details of their arguments. In fact, before I shelved Zwicker's Towers of Deception, I had marked off additional sections that I intended to post here at JREF. However, that wasn't a priority when I shelved the book, and it certainly isn't now.

As for the question of why, after already having accepting a Chomsky-like viewpoint, I find the application of his general viewpoint applicable to the specific case of 911 to be valid (even if Chomsky, himself, doesn't go there), I consider this self-evident. Basically, the same forces that mitigate against forcefully challenging political power structures are there wrt both 911 and, say, the question of GW Bush being a war criminal.

Since you couldn't trouble yourself to answer a couple of simple questions of mine, while wanting me to spend great gobs of my own time holding your hand (even if you didn't realize that that's what you're asking for), and since you don't seem to listen very well, it's off to my ignore list you go. Your evasion of my simple questions is duly noted, and congratulations - you're my first ignore-lister at JREF. I suggest that, in your dealings with other posters in the future, if you don't want to make it to their ignore lists, you keep the principle of reciprocity in mind, and don't be overly presumptuous of what you think they owe you, in terms of commitments of their time.

This does not answer the questions I asked. No evidence has been provided.


Astute obsevers will also note that metamars has yet again written many words while saying nothing of consequence nor answering a single one of the relevant questions that has been put to him. This is very telling indeed.


In my twenties, and attorney gave me some great advice, for testifying on the stand. He cut me off after listening to a few of my responses: "Don't deny or say what wasn't the case; rather, assert, affirm, say what was the case." Expensive, but good advice you can have for free, Metamars.

You're about 60% complaining about the herd at JREF, other reactions that just aren't interesting
30% claiming Chomsky as an ally, when he isn't
9% hand-waving--darkly implying something or other

[metamars]

30% claiming Chomsky as an ally, when he isn't


Don't you think you should re-phrase this? If not, it just shows me that your compulsion for simplicity and definiteness is so strong, you're quite willing to embrace a false statement, for simplicity's sake.

Also, here's a simple, definite statement, that you can take to the bank: the 911 Commission's actions were a disgrace to the nation, and an insult to the 911 families whose agitation led to it's creation.

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.

[Travis]

Also, here's a simple, definite statement, that you can take to the bank: the 911 Commission's actions were a disgrace to the nation, and an insult to the 911 families whose agitation led to it's creation.

Yes, because its results did not conform to your ideological bias it must have been a disgrace. I mean unless you have evidence that it failed to meet its goals that, for some reason, you have failed to present up to now.

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.

So you are disavowing the Chomsky BS and his mighty "700 references" now?

[Drudgewire]

Here's another simple, definite statement for you: most 12 year olds, of at least average intelligence, will be able to tell you, after reading this thread, why your BS about my "claiming Chomsky as an ally" is just that.


And once again my favorite twooferism rears its hilarious head:

"If you'd only think like a child, you'd be able to see things my way." :newlol

[metamars]

I should have mentioned that this table displays 10 rows of left media entities, and 8 columns of specific issues, 2 of which are 911 related.

Out of these 20 grid cells, only one was rated 'Yes-D; Coverage of the story as a debate between antagonists'. (Other possible ratings were:

No: Did not cover the story
Yes-P: Partial coverage of the story but left out key points
Yes-N: Opinion statement against the story or negative coverage

)

Sorry, I missed 2 cells in a 911 column that simply had 'Yes' in them. Still a miserable record, especially for an "alternative" collection of news sources.

[Corsair 115]

If you really want evidence I suggest you attend a demonstration or protest in support of some contentious cause then read about it in the media the next day. See if you can recognise the event you attended from their description. You're long on rhetoric but short on evidence. Do you have anything to substantiate why and how non-American media, that is, the media of other nations, are going along with this alleged 9/11 conspiracy? It's a rather important question in desperate need of an answer.

Again, I find it odd why you would not take this golden opportunity to prove your point and completely embarrass your opponents.