Philip Zelikow, impartial?

[Docker]

For those who think the 911 Commision was impartial, please read the wikipedia entry on Philip Zelikow.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". He also wrote an article in 1998 saying the destruction of the towers would be a new pearl harbour and provide a veritable wish list for the neo cons.

So, as an aside, thats three Pearl Harbour references before 9/11.

[bob_kark]

I'd love to read this article, where can I find it?

[Docker]

I'd love to read this article, where can I find it?

Wikipedia may link to it. I cant link yet because I have less than 50 posts. The wikipedia article itself is fascinating, please read it.

[Donal]

you didn't happen to write those parts of the wikipedia entry, did you?

[MikeW]

That bit of the Wikipedia article:

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

[bob_kark]

Wait, the article actually states:
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
It seems he was actually stating this as a warning, not as a "hey guys, this sounds like fun!" i.e. "veritable wish list for the neo cons"

Your thoughts?

[T.A.M.]

I never trust any reference from an encyclopedia that is open for all to submit info on.

That said, Phil Zelikow was not one of the panel, he was the director of the commission. He is probably more impartial thatn Alex Jones or James Fetzer is on the CT nutwing side of things.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". He also wrote an article in 1998 saying the destruction of the towers would be a new pearl harbour and provide a veritable wish list for the neo cons.

Please give a reference for the above statement, or I will assume it is your opinion and nothing more. If it is from the Wiki article, than it is a good example of the crap that goes on that site.

TAM

[MikeW]

Hmm, sorry, scratch that. Something odd here... [goes to investigate]

[defaultdotxbe]

you can post web pages, just drop the http:// part

[CurtC]

So what in that wikipedia article would make anyone think he's biased? The article he wrote in Foreign Affairs simply makes him sound very smart about politics.

[MikeW]

My mistake, the Wikipedia quote was accurate (apologies to whoever added it!). The original is at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html (first 500 words only)

However, that article is based on the complete report that you'll find at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm#CATASTROPHIC%20TERRORISM:%20ELEMENTS %20OF%20A%20NATIONAL%20POLICY , and that isn't well represented by the Wkipedia snippet. They're more concerned about "nuclear, biological, chemical, and cyber threats" in general, for instance, than hijackings (even 9/11-style).

[JamesB]

For those who think the 911 Commision was impartial, please read the wikipedia entry on Philip Zelikow.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". He also wrote an article in 1998 saying the destruction of the towers would be a new pearl harbour and provide a veritable wish list for the neo cons.

So, as an aside, thats three Pearl Harbour references before 9/11.

I gave a briefing at OBC in 1998 in which I talked about Pearl Harbor repeatedly. The only possible conclusion is that I must be involved! :eek:

[MikeW]

And of course there is the "Pearl Harbor" reference that says a President needed a terrorist attack in order to gain public support for involvement in a foreign conflict.

No, not Bush, I meant this newsgroup post from 1993:

Our government blew up the World Trade Center to gather American
support for intervention in the Yugoslavian war. I am almost entirely
convinced of this. I present my evidence for your perusal.


MOTIVE: Pres. Clinton has been in favor of military intervention in the
Bosnian conflict since last Summer, when he suggested bombing raids,
and the possible use of ground forces. The American peopl oppose
getting involved in this war, where there has been ethnic strife for
500 years. We all oppose what is happening there, but think the
Europeans should be responsible first and foremost for keeping their
own house in order. Pres. Clinton needs to gather the support of the
American people before such intervention can be backed by the people
and the Congress. He needs a "Pearl Harbor" type incident to sway our
opinions about intervention there. Hence, an alleged terrorist
explosion is staged, causing minimal damage to people and property,
with maximal public impact.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/bit.listserv.politics/browse_thread/thread/2f115d9fb52ea8e4/53027c21f6923748?lnk=st

[Docker]

you didn't happen to write those parts of the wikipedia entry, did you?

No Donal. Does anybody actually debate seriously here or is it all sarcastic and unhelpful remarks?

[Docker]

I never trust any reference from an encyclopedia that is open for all to submit info on.


TAM

TAM I have seen debunkers using wikipedia numerous times, including Mark Iradian in Screw Loose Change. The double standard in the evidence you will accept is very telling

[Docker]

So what in that wikipedia article would make anyone think he's biased? The article he wrote in Foreign Affairs simply makes him sound very smart about politics.

My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.

[Gravy]

There's nothing wrong with using information from Wikipedia, as long as it's double- and triple-checked. Docker, you took a statement completely out of context. Please explain why.

[Docker]

I gave a briefing at OBC in 1998 in which I talked about Pearl Harbor repeatedly. The only possible conclusion is that I must be involved! :eek:

No that is not my conclusion. I just think its very odd that before 9/11 at least three government related references are made to a new pearl harbour facilitating a positive change, including a direct reference to the twin towers.

Then, since 9/11, we have repeated references to 9/11 as an opportunity.

I am not claiming its hard evidence. Its circumstantial, just like the case against Bin Laden

[Docker]

There's nothing wrong with using information from Wikipedia, as long as it's double- and triple-checked. Docker, you took a statement completely out of context. Please explain why.

How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths". What a perfect choice after Henry Kissenger backed out.

New investigation please.

[T.A.M.]

DOCKER:

Show me one incidence, and quote it, where someone on this site, a debunker, has used Wikipedia as PROOF against the "inside job" theory. If you do, I will state for the record, that it is a weak piece of evidence. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, where anyone may contribute "facts". How strong can that be. The evidence is weak, by virtue of the system the encyclopedia uses to gather its information.

When it comes to 9/11 I NEVER trust Wikipedia alone.

As Gravy has said, if the quote from Wiki has been cross verified from a legitimate source, than it will carry SOME weight.

I am still waiting for the reference for the quote I made note of above.

TAM

[Gravy]

My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.Okay, you've made a claim. Now present your evidence to support it.

[Gravy]

How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths". What a perfect choice after Henry Kissenger backed out.

New investigation please.Docker, Pearl Harbor has been the US benchmark for surprise attack/wakeup call/military retaliation since the day it happened. In what way is Zelikow creating a myth?

[bob_kark]

How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths". What a perfect choice after Henry Kissenger backed out.

New investigation please.
You misunderstand. His expertise is in how these myths are created, not in actually creating them. BIG difference.

[Docker]

Okay, you've made a claim. Now present your evidence to support it.
I have presented my evidence. It is circumstantial admittedly, but so is the evidence against Bin Laden.

I would say that the things we know about Zelikow make him inelligible for the enquiry. A subjective opinion possibly but all I would like is a truly independent inquiry.

Incidentally, I dont think we are going to get one.

[Gravy]

No that is not my conclusion. I just think its very odd that before 9/11 at least three government related references are made to a new pearl harbour facilitating a positive change, including a direct reference to the twin towers.You are aware that the PNAC document was about how to allocate peacetime military spending, in part to avoid a surprise attack, aren't you? It was really, truly, not a published plan to kill thousands of Americans. See the difference?

[Docker]

Docker, Pearl Harbor has been the US benchmark for surprise attack/wakeup call/military retaliation since the day it happened. In what way is Zelikow creating a myth?

Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers

[uk_dave]

Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers


Did you mis-type?

[Gravy]

I have presented my evidence. It is circumstantial admittedly, but so is the evidence against Bin Laden.

I would say that the things we know about Zelikow make him inelligible for the enquiry. A subjective opinion possibly but all I would like is a truly independent inquiry.

Incidentally, I dont think we are going to get one.Define "truly independent." We started a thread for CTs a few days ago, asking what their independent investigation would consist of. None of them responded, so I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on that.

[Docker]

You are aware that the PNAC document was about how to allocate peacetime military spending, in part to avoid a surprise attack, aren't you? It was really, truly, not a published plan to kill thousands of Americans. See the difference?

I do see the difference, but it isnt the only instance. We have The Grand Chessboard mentioning pearl harbour and saying america needs "a truly massive threat" to acheive its geostrategic imperatives. And now, this business with Zelikow.

[T.A.M.]

Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers

You are aware that most of the "panel" were lawyers, etc...right?

TAM

[Gravy]

How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths".
Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers

Breathtaking.

[defaultdotxbe]

Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers
actually i would say someone whos expertise is "making myths" as you say would probably be the best person to seperate myth from fact, as im sure he can spot them a mile away

and how does a diplomat "find truth?"

and you really think lawyers have anything to with truth?

[Docker]

Define "truly independent." We started a thread for CTs a few days ago, asking what their independent investigation would consist of. None of them responded, so I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on that.

Independent for me would be:

1) not appointed by the government

2) A mixture of different political persuasions

3) No members having served in a recent Government or with major ties to them

4) A mixture of great legal minds and relevant experts, e.g. military, aviation, law enforcement

5) No business ties to relevant interests e.g. oil

[Docker]

actually i would say someone whos expertise is "making myths" as you say would probably be the best person to seperate myth from fact, as im sure he can spot them a mile away

and how does a diplomat "find truth?"

and you really think lawyers have anything to with truth?

He isn't just a myth maker, apparently he has a special interest in searing those myths into the public choice. Id take a lawyer or a judge over that any day.

[Docker]

Breathtaking.

Your clearly not interested in a debate. I wish I hadn't bothered

[defaultdotxbe]

your 3 and 4 are almost mutually exclusive

name one military expert you would put on your panel that does not have ties to any recent administration

[Docker]

You are aware that most of the "panel" were lawyers, etc...right?

TAM

I meant lawyers with no political or business conflicts of interest

[uk_dave]

Your clearly not interested in a debate. I wish I hadn't bothered

hmmmmmmmm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Ts1EUsNWY

[Docker]

your 3 and 4 are almost mutually exclusive

name one military expert you would put on your panel that does not have ties to any recent administration

Perhaps a foreign one....

[bob_kark]

He isn't just a myth maker, apparently he has a special interest in searing those myths into the public choice. Id take a lawyer or a judge over that any day.

He is not a mythmaker! If you would read my previous post, you would see that his expertise is in how myths are created not in creating the myths!

[Docker]

Must admit, I had been warned before joining this forum about Gravy.

[Docker]

He is not a mythmaker! If you would read my previous post, you would see that his expertise is in how myths are created not in creating the myths!

Wrong.

[defaultdotxbe]

Must admit, I had been warned before joining this forum about Gravy.
yeah, he'll take you to the curb if you come in here spewing garbage

[Docker]

No that is not my conclusion. I just think its very odd that before 9/11 at least three government related references are made to a new pearl harbour facilitating a positive change, including a direct reference to the twin towers.

Then, since 9/11, we have repeated references to 9/11 as an opportunity.

I am not claiming its hard evidence. Its circumstantial, just like the case against Bin Laden

Would anyone like to respond to the post I made above?

[Docker]

yeah, he'll take you to the curb if you come in here spewing garbage

So i'm spewing garbage? Nice welcome.

I heard something very different about gravy.

[Gravy]

I do see the difference, but it isnt the only instance. We have The Grand Chessboard mentioning pearl harbour and saying america needs "a truly massive threat" to acheive its geostrategic imperatives. And now, this business with Zelikow.Ah, Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" again. Funny how CTs will only ever quote the italicized section below (from pages 24-25) and will never, ever, include the context. Why is that, Docker?


The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The engagement of the United States in the Cold War was initially endorsed more reluctantly, until the Berlin blockade and the subsequent Korean War. After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward a more limited definition of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 and 1996 indicated a general public preference for "sharing" global power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise.


Because of these domestic factors, the American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals—Germany, Japan, and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did. It likewise relies heavily on the indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites, while drawing much benefit from the appeal of its democratic principles and institutions. All of the foregoing are reinforced by the massive but intangible impact of the American domination of global communications, popular entertainment, and mass culture and by the potentially very tangible clout of America's technological edge and global military reach.


Cultural domination has been an underappreciated facet of American global power. Whatever one may think of its aesthetic values, America's mass culture exercises a magnetic appeal, especially on the world's youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of the lifestyle it projects, but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for about three-fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation. Lastly, America has become a Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking to the United States, with many of the ablest never returning home. Graduates from American universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every continent.

That's right, Friends rules!

The Zelikow "business" was to mention that the 1993 WTC bombing could have had a Pearl Harbor-like effect, had it gone according to the terrorist's plan.

Please do not take quotes out of context like this.

[Docker]

Ah, Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" again. Funny how CTs will only ever quote the italicized section below (from pages 24-25) and will never, ever, include the context. Why is that, Docker?



That's right, Friends rules!

The Zelikow "business" was to mention that the 1993 WTC bombing could have had a Pearl Harbor-like effect, had it gone according to the terrorist's plan.

Please do not take quotes out of context like this.

The entire book has the context of occupying the Middle East. I have taken nothing out of context

[Gravy]

I heard something very different about gravy.I'm all ears.

[bob_kark]

Wrong.
Wrong?

Show me any available evidence that proves or even insinuates that Philip Zelikow is an expert at creating myths. I'll wait right here for you.

[Gravy]

The entire book has the context of occupying the Middle East. I have taken nothing out of contextYes, you took the Pearl Harbor quote out of context, as I just demonstrated.

[Docker]

I'm all ears.

I heard the opposite, all mouth.

Somebody said that essentially these people on JREF find out what their opinion is when you tell them what their opinion should be. I can't comment because I don't know you.

[Docker]

Wrong?

Show me any available evidence that proves or even insinuates that Philip Zelikow is an expert at creating myths. I'll wait right here for you.

How about you show me he is an expert in understanding myths, that was the assertion you made.

[Docker]

Yes, you took the Pearl Harbor quote out of context, as I just demonstrated.

What about the truly massive external threat? Very selective.

[Gravy]

Your clearly not interested in a debate. I wish I hadn't botheredLook, if you want to be taken seriously, don't do this:

Say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then say that you didn't say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then immediately term Zelikow a mythmaker again.

If you don't expect to be called out on things like that, boy, are you in the wrong place.

[gumboot]

Wow.

Even from read the wikipedia snippet, it's very clear his comments are not saying what the OP claims they are saying. And yet we learn they were ALSO taken out of context.

Awesome.

These CTers are getting lazy.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

I heard the opposite, all mouth.You're welcome to

A) Provide an example of a discussion I've been involved in where I did not provide evidence to support my statements, or

B) Find out by debating the issues.

[Gravy]

What about the truly massive external threat? Very selective.
I don't follow you.

[Docker]

You're welcome to

A) Provide an example of a discussion I've been involved in where I did not provide evidence to support my statements, or

B) Find out by debating the issues.

A) i cant since I dont know you

B) my attempt at debate so far have just drawn sarcasm

[Docker]

I don't follow you.

Nor do you lead me.

[Garb]

Nor do you lead me.

He means he doesn't understand what you are talking about.

Aare you purposefully playing stupid?

[bob_kark]

How about you show me he is an expert in understanding myths, that was the assertion you made.
Against your assertation that he was a myth creator to which you provided zero evidence. Name one myth he created. State where you even came up with this. Oh wait, I think I know, wikipedia:

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
He's a history professor at UVA. He's stating how myths are created by public perception of grand events such as the Civil War, slavery, WWII, Vietnam, etc... not how he's creating myths. That's why when he speculates:

that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
His opinion holds weight.

[Docker]

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, don't do this:

Say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then say that you didn't say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then immediately term Zelikow a mythmaker again.

If you don't expect to be called out on things like that, boy, are you in the wrong place.

I did no such thing. I said hes a myth maker but that I am not suggesting he made myths in this case. I just suggest hes the wrong choice for a commission.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.

[T.A.M.]

When BUSH was asked/pressed to investigate 9/11, did those who wanted the investigation indicate or request that it be a panel of people with no government ties or business connections?

If not, what was wrong with the selections BUSH made?

TAM

[Dog Town]

My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.

Ahemm!

[Docker]

He means he doesn't understand what you are talking about.

Aare you purposefully playing stupid?

Are you Gravy's spokesman?

[Docker]

When BUSH was asked/pressed to investigate 9/11, did those who wanted the investigation indicate or request that it be a panel of people with no government ties or business connections?

If not, what was wrong with the selections BUSH made?

TAM

The fact that Bush made the choice is wrong. They should be selected or elected by an independent method

[gumboot]

So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot

[Garb]

Are you Gravy's spokesman?

Are you side-stepping?

[Gravy]

A) i cant since I dont know you

B) my attempt at debate so far have just drawn sarcasmFalse. It has also drawn evidence that you took these quotes out of context, and that your logic is flawed.

You started another thread you claimed that the purported ISI funding connection was apparently the biggest smoking gun in the whole affair.

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to support your claim. You provided none. Zero.

I ask you again: If you have no evidence for your biggest smoking gun, what does that say about the rest of your smoking guns? So far you're shooting blanks.

[Docker]

TAM if I were accused of negligence in my job would it be right that I choose the panel to investigate? Of course not.

[Docker]

Are you side-stepping?

I just prefer talking to organ grinders not monkeys.

[bob_kark]

So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot
You'd win the cupie doll if I had one.

[Garb]

I just prefer talking to organ grinders not monkeys.

Okay then.

[Docker]

False. It has also drawn evidence that you took these quotes out of context, and that your logic is flawed.

You started another thread you claimed that the purported ISI funding connection was apparently the biggest smoking gun in the whole affair.

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to support your claim. You provided none. Zero.

I ask you again: If you have no evidence for your biggest smoking gun, what does that say about the rest of your smoking guns? So far you're shooting blanks.

I abandoned the thread on ISI because people were merely taking the piss and accusing me of folowing Alex Jones blindly, a man I never mentioned.

[Docker]

Okay then.

Witty response. I am sure you will go far with that calibre of repartee.

[Garb]

Witty response. I am sure you will go far with that calibre of repartee.

Thanks buddy. That really means a lot.

[Docker]

So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot

I never mentioned Adolf Hitler.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.

[Docker]

Thanks buddy. That really means a lot.


Uncanny. Your like a young Groucho Marx

[gumboot]

I never mentioned Adolf Hitler.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.


Do you know what illustration means?

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.
How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths".
Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers
I did no such thing. I said hes a myth maker but that I am not suggesting he made myths in this case. I just suggest hes the wrong choice for a commission.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.
You've now said four times that Zelikow should not have been on the Commission because he's a mythmaker.

Now show us the myths he's made, or withdraw the claim. That's how it works around here. It's put up or shut up.

[Docker]

Do you know what illustration means?

-Gumboot

Yes. I feel that equating myth-making with killing 6000000 people is not illustrative. Its stupid.

[Garb]

Uncanny. Your like a young Groucho Marx

What's odd is you keep on attacking me when a more important audience is making a fool out of you.


You need to know when to pick your battles.

[bob_kark]

I never mentioned Adolf Hitler.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.
Are you serious?

[Docker]

You've now said four times that Zelikow should not have been on the Commission because he's a mythmaker.

Now show us the myths he's made, or withdraw the claim. That's how it works around here. It's put up or shut up.

Your not an administrator Gravy. I'll let them tell me how it goes. He is totally unsuitable for the commission in my opinion. You can have yours.

[DavidJames]

Docker: Here's some free advice.

Take a step back and take a deep breath.

Decide what the claim is you want to make against Zelikow, then articulate the claim and support it with evidence. If you think he is impartial, find evidence to support the claim, present it, and a link to the source. Another approach is to find evidence in the report of bias. Again, you would need articulate your claim and support it with evidence.

I've broken down your opening post into your two claims.:The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". My first response is "So what"? I believe you are attempting to refute his credibility, but haven't provided any supporting evidence. This first claim is useless.

He also wrote an article in 1998 saying the destruction of the towers would be a new pearl harbour and provide a veritable wish list for the neo cons.You have been shown that you have completely taken the pearl harbor comment out of context. Yet you have refused to respond, that's not a good way to gain credibility.

[Docker]

What's odd is you keep on attacking me when a more important audience is making a fool out of you.


You need to know when to pick your battles.

Are you watching a different thread to me?

So you admit the intention on this forum is to gang up and make fools out of people? Nice. Well you wont do it to me chaps. Hard cheese and all that

[Gravy]

I abandoned the thread on ISI because people were merely taking the piss and accusing me of folowing Alex Jones blindly, a man I never mentioned.Listen to me, Docker. You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to back your claim of the "biggest smoking gun." You were unable to do so.

I strongly suggest you look at the posts made on these forums by CTs pdoherty76 and TruthSeeker1234. You are behaving exactly like them.

You will always be asked to support your claims with evidence here. Always. Clear enough?

[Docker]

Docker: Here's some free advice.

Take a step back and take a deep breath.

Decide what the claim is you want to make against Zelikow, then articulate the claim and support it with evidence. If you think he is impartial, find evidence to support the claim, present it, and a link to the source. Another approach is to find evidence in the report of bias. Again, you would need articulate your claim and support it with evidence.

I've broken down your opening post into your two claims.:My first response is "So what"? I believe you are attempting to refute his credibility, but haven't provided any supporting evidence. This first claim is useless.

You have been shown that you have completely taken the pearl harbor comment out of context. Yet you have refused to respond, that's not a good way to gain credibility.

So far this forum does not seem like a place I would like to be credible in.

[Garb]

Are you watching a different thread to me?

So you admit the intention on this forum is to gang up and make fools out of people? Nice. Well you wont do it to me chaps. Hard cheese and all that

I never said that. But just because it isn't the intention does not mean that isn't what is happening to you.

Would you like to continue this irrelvant discussion so you can act like a big guy over the internet or do you want to go back to the topic at hand?

[Docker]

Listen to me, Docker. You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to back your claim of the "biggest smoking gun." You were unable to do so.

I strongly suggest you look at the posts made on these forums by CTs pdoherty76 and TruthSeeker1234. You are behaving exactly like them.

You will always be asked to support your claims with evidence here. Always. Clear enough?

And if I refuse to do so? Am I thrown out of the forum?

I have read the 911myths chapter on the ISI. They did not adequately refute the sources they cited. They danced around the issues. I simply would like to see Mahmood questioned by the relevant authorities. Is that too much to ask?

[gumboot]

I simply would like to see Mahmood questioned by the relevant authorities. Is that too much to ask?


How should they go about capturing him?

-Gumboot

[Docker]

I never said that. But just because it isn't the intention does not mean that isn't what is happening to you.

Would you like to continue this irrelvant discussion so you can act like a big guy over the internet or do you want to go back to the topic at hand?

How am I acting the big guy?

Is that your picture by the way? If thats how you represent yourself on the interbnet then I think I need say no more.

[Gravy]

Your not an administrator Gravy. I'll let them tell me how it goes. He is totally unsuitable for the commission in my opinion. You can have yours.You came here requesting a debate. I'm telling you how it works. You won't be banned for expressing your opinions, but opinions are not evidence and will sway no one here. I don't give a damn what you think about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I give a damn about what evidence you bring to the table.

If anyone disagrees with me, and thinks that opinions are valid as evidence, they will speak right up.

[Docker]

How should they go about capturing him?

-Gumboot

I couldnt care less. They could try diplomacy with their pal pakistan.

[Garb]

How am I acting the big guy?

Is that your picture by the way? If thats how you represent yourself on the interbnet then I think I need say no more.

You attacked me outright. Then you proceeded to attack after I had tried to diffuse the situation. Seems like you have an agenda on trying to resort to personal attacks to make me look bad. Even though you are ignoring the debate you started to begin with.

What other attacks do you have for me?

[Gravy]

Now, Docker, tell us what myths Zelikow has made.

[dirtywick]

And if I refuse to do so?

Then you'll get made fun of and no one will care about your opinions and theories. Should be kind of self evident by now.

[gumboot]

I couldnt care less. They could try diplomacy with their pal pakistan.


Yes I can see that working.

"Dear Pakistan. We think people in your government were involved in 9/11. Please hand them over."

"Dear US. Sure, no problem. Who would you like?"

:rolleyes:

-Gumboot

[NotJesus]

So far this forum does not seem like a place I would like to be credible in.

In that case, you're doing very well.

[bob_kark]

So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot
He's comparing the Wiki aricle that states:

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,”
Which caused you to believe he was a "myth maker"

To someone stating "my field of expertise is Adolf Hitler," and you believing that they were in fact Adolf Hitler. He's not calling you Adolf Hitler.

Did you seriously misunderstand that or are you playing games?

[Docker]

Now, Docker, tell us what myths Zelikow has made.

I dont know of any Gravy. He admits he is an expert in the creation and maintenence of myths. Thats all I claimed.

[Docker]

He's comparing the Wiki aricle that states:


Which caused you to believe he was a "myth maker"

To someone stating "my field of expertise is Adolf Hitler," and you believing that they were in fact Adolf Hitler. He's not calling you Adolf Hitler.

Did you seriously misunderstand that or are you playing games?

Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?

[DavidJames]

So far this forum does not seem like a place I would like to be credible in.There was a recent poster pdoherty (or something like that). He seemed to take pride in the fact that he wasn't a critical thinker and didn't care to support his opinions with evidence. He just wanted to dump his opinions and aimless debate, with no basis in facts. Would you describe yourself the same way?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best place for your. People here generally have no patience for accusations without supporting evidence. Especially when those accusations involve accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder. I'm one of them, even though I never voted for Bush and object to almost everyone one of his political ideals.

[Dog Town]

I dont know of any Gravy. He admits he is an expert in the creation and maintenence of myths. Thats all I claimed.

So that makes him a bad choice how?

[Docker]

In that case, you're doing very well.

Thanks again. Another person I have never spoken to decides to attack me.

[Docker]

So that makes him a bad choice how?

Well, for a start, I would like to see somebody with expertise in something relevant.

[DarkMagician]

Thanks again. Another person I have never spoken to decides to attack me.

We're attacking your argument. We are not attacking you. You seem to be doing a good-enough job of that yourself.

[Gravy]

I dont know of any Gravy. He admits he is an expert in the creation and maintenence of myths. Thats all I claimed.No, you claimed, four times, that he is a myth maker. His Wiki bio claims that an area of his academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of myths. He studies myths and mythmakers.

Do you see the difference? Yes or no?

If yes, do you withdraw your claim that he is a mythmaker, which was the basis for your opinion that he should not have been selected for the Commission?

[gumboot]

Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?


The more extreme you make an example, the clearer the illustration is.

Most people would say you were utterly insane to think someone IS Hitler when they claim they are an EXPERT on Hitler.

This makes it easier to realise you would be equally insane to think Zelikow WAS a mythmaker when he claims he is an expert on mythmaking.

-Gumboot

[alexg]

Docker, starting fresh, would you please explain why Zelikow should be judged unfit. If his academic specialty has to do with understanding how these public myths are created does it follow that he would be any more likely to create these myths than anyone else? I don't think so. To take it to that level we need to know much more about his history and specifically we would need eviedence he had been employed or otherwise occupied in such a capacity before.

To say generally that anyone appointed by Bush or being a US citezen might make them in some way biased is of course an argument that could be used against any of those on the commision. Why single out Zelikow? Wouldn't you want to know much more about him before you question his impartiality?

ETA If in addition to having this knowledge if you could show that he had been employed by, say, the CIA, in this capacity you might then have a good case for looking deeper.

[bob_kark]

Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?
No! I'm sorry, but I have to conclude that you're just yanking our chain. I find it impossible to believe that you're really that obtuse. It was entertaining, but I'm not interested in debating the obvious anymore.

[Dog Town]

Well, for a start, I would like to see somebody with expertise in something relevant.

Yet he has no connections, to things you would call him impartial for! Hmmmm!

[Docker]

There was a recent poster pdoherty (or something like that). He seemed to take pride in the fact that he wasn't a critical thinker and didn't care to support his opinions with evidence. He just wanted to dump his opinions and aimless debate, with no basis in facts. Would you describe yourself the same way?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best place for your. People here generally have no patience for accusations without supporting evidence. Especially when those accusations involve accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder. I'm one of them, even though I never voted for Bush and object to almost everyone one of his political ideals.

So this pdoherty is no longer here? Nice of you to talk about him when he cant respond.

The official account accuses people on the basis of circumstantial evidence. And doesn't even question people who might shed light on it, like Mahmood.

[gumboot]

Well, for a start, I would like to see somebody with expertise in something relevant.


Well, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, and the entire terrorist thing is a sham, he's the PERFECT man for the job isn't he?

I mean, if anyone could spot mythmaking it would be him.

-Gumboot

[Docker]

Yet he has no connections, to things you would call him impartial for! Hmmmm!

He was very connected to the administration. Wrote a book with condoleeza rice.

[Garb]

He was very connected to the administration. Wrote a book with condoleeza rice.

NVM. Misread.


You're no fun :(

[Docker]

Well, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, and the entire terrorist thing is a sham, he's the PERFECT man for the job isn't he?

I mean, if anyone could spot mythmaking it would be him.

-Gumboot

But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour? A commission appointed by the government cant be impartial.

[Dog Town]

He was very connected to the administration. Wrote a book with condoleeza rice.

You sure see lots of shadows.

[Docker]

So if I wrote a book on Robert Dinero, then that means I am very connected to him?

No if you wrote a book WITH robert de niro you would be. Please pay attention.

[gumboot]

But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour?


Why would he favour any myth? He's more likely to realise it IS a myth. And say so.

-Gumboot

[Docker]

You sure see lots of shadows.

Come off it. Who did they appoint first? Henry Kissinger.

Do you think they will appoint people who will view them critically? I think you start looking for shadows. After you have removed your head from the sand

[Docker]

Why would he favour any myth? He's more likely to realise it IS a myth. And say so.

-Gumboot

He could be influenced to steer that commision to give a certain view to the public.

The commissioners should be chosen independently, thats all I ask.

[Garb]

I think this thread has lost its original meaning.


The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths".

Now that we proved once and for all that he wasn't good at CREATING myths, can this thread be put to rest?

[Dog Town]

Ok, name one real person, by name, that would be ok with you to pick the Panel!

[Garb]

Ok, name one real person, by name, that would be ok with you to pick the Panel!

I can take a wild guess...

[dirtywick]

But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour? A commission appointed by the government cant be impartial.

Why not?

Judges and prosecutors are connected in a similar way, but I don't see every ruling in a prosecutors favor.

You're not even saying he just had a bias anymore, you're saying he's corrupt. I'm sorry to call you on this like everyone else, but if you're going to call the members of the 9/11 Commission corrupt, you're going to need at least some evidence.

Or do we need a commission to investigate the commission now too?

[DarkMagician]

He was very connected to the administration. Wrote a book with condoleeza rice.

Who was in "Bicentennial [N-word]", with Don King, who was in "The Devil's Advocate" with Charlize Theron, who was in "Trapped" with Kevin Bacon.

Connections mean next to nothing if you can't connect them with anything important.

[Docker]

Ok, name one real person, by name, that would be ok with you to pick the Panel!

How about a vote in congress. Bit of democracy for a change.

[Docker]

Why not?

Judges and prosecutors are connected in a similar way, but I don't see every ruling in a prosecutors favor.

You're not even saying he just had a bias anymore, you're saying he's corrupt. I'm sorry to call you on this like everyone else, but if you're going to call the members of the 9/11 Commission corrupt, you're going to need at least some evidence.

Or do we need a commission to investigate the commission now too?


Show me the post where I called him corrupt.

[Garb]

I think this thread has lost its original meaning.


The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths".

Now that we proved once and for all that he wasn't good at CREATING myths, can this thread be put to rest?



*cough*

[Dog Town]

How about a vote in congress. Bit of democracy for a change.

You don't trust the government! Did I miss something?

[Docker]

Dirtywick please dont set up strawmen for my posiyion. Its so transparent

[Docker]

I think this thread has lost its original meaning.




Now that we proved once and for all that he wasn't good at CREATING myths, can this thread be put to rest?



*cough*

How did you prove this?

You weren't involved in this discussion. You just jumped on the gravt train, pun intended

[Dog Town]

You weren't involved in this discussion. You just jumped on the gravt train, pun intended

This is an open thread to anyone. Get on w/it!

[Docker]

You don't trust the government! Did I miss something?

I dont trust the administration. There is a difference. Thats the tenth time I have been misrepresented in this thread. Nice tactic

[T.A.M.]

TAM if I were accused of negligence in my job would it be right that I choose the panel to investigate? Of course not.

Ahhh...you are assuming that at the time the commission was hired to investigate the actionsof BUSH et al, but was that the purpose. The people that called for the 9/11 Investigation did not do so because they thought BUSH was negligent. Noone called for that investigation to look for BUSH negligence.

TAM

[Garb]

How did you prove this?

You weren't involved in this discussion. You just jumped on the gravt train, pun intended

...

So what if I wasn't involved? Does that mean I can't provide a relevant discussion in this thread? No.

So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot

You remember.

[alexg]

I'll give you this - if you start with the premise that the US gov was a suspect in the crimes of 911 then any commission appointed by the US gov would be less than ideal. I start with a different premise - that someone else did it. Inasmuch that the US gov may have been asleep at the wheel then possibly we didn't get the most exhaustive and unbiased investigation of that. MYHOP or LIHOP has insufficent evidence to launch a new investigation. There is just no good evidence, just a lot of cynical, suspicious, opinions.

[Dog Town]

I dont trust the administration. There is a difference. Thats the tenth time I have been misrepresented in this thread. Nice tactic

You are aware, it is a Republican dominated congress correct? Not trying to misrep ya in the least.

[DavidJames]

So this pdoherty is no longer here? Nice of you to talk about him when he cant respond..pdoherty in his own words...my critical thinking skills are not good enough and i hope to improve them here
this forum just amazes my because i have never been exposed to this "show me the proof" tactic before.
if this site is for critical thinkers then surely thoughts will suffice not reams of evidence.
What is wrong with speculation?...
I dont have to have evidence to have an opinion...

[dirtywick]

Show me the post where I called him corrupt.

"But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour?"

You went from saying he had a propencity to being biased and was unqualified for the job because of that to saying he, in fact, did favor Bush.

[Dog Town]

Inasmuch that the US gov may have been asleep at the wheel then possibly we didn't get the most exhaustive and unbiased investigation of that.

Exactly!

[Gravy]

How about a vote in congress. Bit of democracy for a change.And you wouldn't complain about the commissioners chosen by a Republican-dominated Congress?

Oops, DogTown beat me to it.

[T.A.M.]

If they thought, at the time, that BUSH was negligent, and if that was the reason for the commission, than wouldn't they have called for an inquiry, an investigation into BUSH, called for his impeachment?

TAM

[Docker]

And you wouldn't complain about the commissioners chosen by a Republican-dominated Congress?

Its better than by Bush himself. Not saying these things can be perfect but, as I said before, if I am accussed of negligence in my job then you wouldnt want me picking the disciplinary panel.

[Dog Town]

And you wouldn't complain about the commissioners chosen by a Republican-dominated Congress?

Oops, DogTown beat me to it.

Great minds, and all....

[T.A.M.]

Was The Mandate Of The Commission To Investigate Bush For Negligence?

TAM

[Gravy]

Its better than by Bush himself. Not saying these things can be perfect but, as I said before, if I am accussed of negligence in my job then you wouldnt want me picking the disciplinary panel.How does that apply to Zelikow? Do you have evidence of his negligence, or not?

[Docker]

"But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour?"

You went from saying he had a propencity to being biased and was unqualified for the job because of that to saying he, in fact, did favor Bush.

So I never said he was corrupt, well done.

[Dog Town]

Was The Mandate Of The Commission To Investigate Bush For Negligence?

TAM
Nope! Or Clinton

[dirtywick]

So I never said he was corrupt, well done.

Not specifically, but is that not corruption?

[T.A.M.]

What you want is an inquiry/investigation into possible negligence of the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks. Was that the mandate of the 9/11 Commission, yes or no. If the answer is no, than how was Zelikow a bad choice?

TAM

[Docker]

How does that apply to Zelikow? Do you have evidence of his negligence, or not?

It doesn't. It applies to everyone by definition. I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.

[Dog Town]

It doesn't. It applies to everyone by definition. I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.

What are you going on about?

[Docker]

What you want is an inquiry/investigation into possible negligence of the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks. Was that the mandate of the 9/11 Commission, yes or no. If the answer is no, than how was Zelikow a bad choice?

TAM

Anyone the government picks is a bad choice. We want total impartiality in case the government have been negligent.

This applies everywhere, not just in politics.

[T.A.M.]

See the problem here is that the 9/11 Commission did not turn out to be what the CTs wanted them to be. they were not set up to investigate the governments involvement or negligence on 9/11, which is what the CTers want. this is why they keep saying the commission was bias and corrupt, but they were not. They fulfilled their mandate as it was given to them.

TAM

[gumboot]

I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.


The 9/11 Commission was not a disciplinary panel, and certainly not a disciplinary panel for the President.

-Gumboot

[Docker]

What are you going on about?

Your inability to understand is not my problem sir. Please read the post I made again slowly.

[Dog Town]

Anyone the government picks is a bad choice. We want total impartiality in case the government have been negligent.

This applies everywhere, not just in politics.

What was it you recomended Congress do?

[T.A.M.]

Anyone the government picks is a bad choice. We want total impartiality in case the government have been negligent.

This applies everywhere, not just in politics.

So do not blame the 9/11 commission for what they did. They did what they were asked to do, they fulfilled their mandate. Your real issue is not that the commission was tainted, but that now, 5 years later, you have enough suspicion that you want ANOTHER, different investigation, one aimed at looking for neglicence and/or complicity on the part of the USG. Correct?

TAM

[Docker]

The 9/11 Commission was not a disciplinary panel, and certainly not a disciplinary panel for the President.

-Gumboot

Im just making an illustration. The government may have been negligent.

[Dog Town]

Your inability to understand is not my problem sir. Please read the post I made again slowly.

911 com was not investigating a singular person, to affix blame!

[Docker]

...

So what if I wasn't involved? Does that mean I can't provide a relevant discussion in this thread?

You are entitled to provide a relevant discussion. I am just yet to see any evidence of it.

[gumboot]

Im just making an illustration. The government may have been negligent.


Cute. Your claim relies on the commission being a disciplinary panel. It was not. Therefore your claim is false.

-Gumboot

[Docker]

So do not blame the 9/11 commission for what they did. They did what they were asked to do, they fulfilled their mandate. Your real issue is not that the commission was tainted, but that now, 5 years later, you have enough suspicion that you want ANOTHER, different investigation, one aimed at looking for neglicence and/or complicity on the part of the USG. Correct?

TAM

When did I say it was the commissions fault. Please show me the post. Thats eleven times I have been misrepresented now.

[Gravy]

Wait a minute. The 9/11 Commissioners were appointed by Congress. Five Democrats and five Republicans were chosen. Yes?

[Dog Town]

Wait a minute. The 9/11 Commissioners were appointed by Congress. Five Democrats and five Republicans were chosen. Yes?

Correct amundo!

[T.A.M.]

From Preface of 9/11 Commission Report:

"Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate 'facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001', including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined to be relivant by the commission."

TAM

[gumboot]

From Preface of 9/11 Commission Report:


Did they really spell "relevant" wrong? :p

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

My point is this, Docker. If you look at the mandate of the commission, it does not involve any areas where the appointment of the panel by the president would involve a conflict of interest, as you have suggested.

TAM

edit: yes they spelled it "relevant"...I copied verbatim from the PDF.

[T.A.M.]

Wait a minute. The 9/11 Commissioners were appointed by Congress. Five Democrats and five Republicans were chosen. Yes?

It also appears, from the above, that the whole "BUSH" chose them is irrelevent, as they were chosen by congress.

lol


TAM

[Gravy]

When did I say it was the commissions fault. We're all here because in your opening post you implied that the Commission was not impartial, and provided as evidence the Wikipedia article about Zelikow. Is that accurate?

[Garb]

You are entitled to provide a relevant discussion. I am just yet to see any evidence of it.

Well don't tell me I hopped on the gravy train, because I put a post that described how saying he studies myths does not mean he is a myth-maker.

[Horatius]

So, if you were writing an article about the possible effects of a large-scale surprise attack for an American audience, what example would you have used? "Pearl Harbour = Sneak Attack" is a staple of US culture, and will probably only be surplanted by 9/11 itself, once some more time has passed.

And for the record, I think someone who can say this:

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

Years before 9/11 is a pretty smart guy who understands the possible negative consequences of our over-reaction to things like terrorism. I wish we had more guys like him in charge of things.

Except for the question of intensity, he's predicted pretty much everything the US and other governments have done in reaction to 9/11. Predicting something doesn't mean he's advocating it. From the tone of this quote, I'd say it was the exact opposite-he was warning against a knee-jerk over-reaction.

[SezMe]

I think this thread has lost its original meaning.

Now that we proved once and for all that he wasn't good at CREATING myths, can this thread be put to rest?

*cough*
[/derail]
That's not how it works around here, Garb. If every thread ended when it lost its original meaning, all the fora together would fit in your back pocket. In many (most?) cases, the fun really begins when we get far afield. Or, as in this case, when we beat a dead horse for pages and pages. :)

[Garb]

[/derail]
That's not how it works around here, Garb. If every thread ended when it lost its original meaning, all the fora together would fit in your back pocket. In many (most?) cases, the fun really begins when we get far afield. Or, as in this case, when we beat a dead horse for pages and pages. :)

Uhhhhhhh yay?

[alexg]

If I were an investigative journalist and I discovered Zelikow was an expert in 'public myths' I would regard this as a starting point, as of possible interest, and then begin investigating. I suggest you do the same. See if he has done anything with his knowledge. Look into his political life. Dig. All you have at this point is step one in a many step process.

[SezMe]

Docker, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose Zelikow is a myth-maker. This is a James Randi forum. Randi is an illusionist - a world class one. Yet it is this very skill which makes him the world's preeminent investigator of illusions, paranormal, etc. So, as others have noted, even if your premise was true (which it was not) your conclusion does not follow.

[defaultdotxbe]

I dont trust the administration. There is a difference. Thats the tenth time I have been misrepresented in this thread. Nice tactic
sorry to drag up an old post, but this thread really ballooned in the last hour or so

anyway, here were your previous stipulations for an "independent" commission:


Independent for me would be:

1) not appointed by the government

2) A mixture of different political persuasions

3) No members having served in a recent Government or with major ties to them

4) A mixture of great legal minds and relevant experts, e.g. military, aviation, law enforcement

5) No business ties to relevant interests e.g. oil

i would call the current congress a recent government, and someone just appointed to a position to have ties to them

[Docker]

We're all here because in your opening post you implied that the Commission was not impartial, and provided as evidence the Wikipedia article about Zelikow. Is that accurate?

yes but being partial is not a criticism of the commission, it's a criticism of those who chose them.

[Docker]

[/derail]
That's not how it works around here, Garb. If every thread ended when it lost its original meaning, all the fora together would fit in your back pocket. In many (most?) cases, the fun really begins when we get far afield. Or, as in this case, when we beat a dead horse for pages and pages. :)

I agree. From small acorns great oaks grow

[Docker]

If I were an investigative journalist and I discovered Zelikow was an expert in 'public myths' I would regard this as a starting point, as of possible interest, and then begin investigating. I suggest you do the same. See if he has done anything with his knowledge. Look into his political life. Dig. All you have at this point is step one in a many step process.

I am not a jounalist so whats your point?

[alexg]

I am not a jounalist so whats your point?

That is my point.

Seriously, are you a propagandist or seriously interested in learning about Zelikow? If you want to learn then do so and come back and tell us if he is biased or not.

ETA Lacking that I don't think I would go about asserting he was biased or implying he was or even suggesting he might be or whatever it was you were doing or 'not doing' here.

[Docker]

That is my point.

Seriously, are you a propagandist or seriously interested in learning about Zelikow? If you want to learn then do so and come back and tell us if he is biased or not.

You explicitly stated that that would require invetigative journalist skills I do not possess

[Gravy]

yes but being partial is not a criticism of the commission, it's a criticism of those who chose them.Here (http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm)is how the selection process worked:

SEC. 603. <> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION. Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of whom--

(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall serve as chairman of the Commission;

(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate (majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice chairman of the Commission;

(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;

(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican Party;

(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and

(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic Party.

Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--

(1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 5 members of the Commission shall be from the same political party.

(2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the Federal Government or any State or local government.

(3) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce (including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.

(4) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the Commission shall be appointed on or before December 15, 2002.

(5) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission as soon as practicable.

[alexg]

You explicitly stated that that would require invetigative journalist skills I do not possess

Then stand down.

Or you could emulate your apparent hero. But there wouldn't be much point of doing that here.

[Docker]

Here (http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm)is how the selection process worked:

Ok Gravy I take your point. Maybe it wasnt as impartial as I thought. But I dont think the president should appoint the chairman.

[Docker]

Then stand down.

Or you could emulate your apparent hero. But there wouldn't be much point of doing that here.

Who's my hero?

[alexg]

Your avatar, apparently. I'll admit I assumed too much. But you gotta admit using him as your avatar suggests something along those lines. Or is that you?

[Gravy]

Who's my hero?
He's probably referring to Alex Jones. You know, the guy who accuses the FDNY of abandoning their fallen brothers in order to participate in a real estate crime.

That guy.

[Docker]

Your avatar, apparently. I'll admit I assumed too much. But you gotta admit using him as your avatar suggests something along those lines. Or is that you?

I'll tell you why I use Jones as my avatar. In my first thread here, on the ISI,
I was immediately accused of being an alex jones follower, despite never mentioning him. So I thought he would be the ideal choice.

[LashL]

Must be an old picture. He's much fatter these days. But still a complete and utter lunatic.

[Docker]

Must be an old picture. He's much fatter these days. But still a complete and utter lunatic.

And his weight matters how?

[quixotecoyote]

I love how the weight is disputed but not the lunacy.
/hit and run

[alexg]

Docker, I repect your POV, I understand it's tough to go one on ten or whatever the odds are here. I meant what I said about Zelikow. You could have something there but it definitely needs more research. Hell, as an accomplished Googleist, which I assume you are like the rest of us, you might not need to be an investigative journalist. That he is an expert in public myths and that he wrote a book with a prominent member of the current admin. is worth looking into. But no more than that at this point. ETA I honestly think that's where you stand with this.

[Docker]

Docker, I repect your POV, I understand it's tough to go one on ten or whatever the odds are here. I meant what I said about Zelikow. You could have something there but it definitely needs more research. Hell, as an accomplished Googleist, which I assume you are like the rest of us, you might not need to be an investigative journalist. That he is an expert in public myths and that he wrote a book with a prominent member of the current admin. is worth looking into. But no more than that at this point. ETA I honestly think that's where you stand with this.

But googlists can only go so far. Proper investigations need interviews, travelling etc

I admitted I have no solid evidence, I'm just amazed that lots of things aren't being looked at.

Take the Mahmood claims, he should be questioned and looked at.

[Docker]

I love how the weight is disputed but not the lunacy.
/hit and run

I didn't dispute the weight. Iasked how it mattered. Please pay attention

[alexg]

But googlists can only go so far. Proper investigations need interviews, travelling etc

I admitted I have no solid evidence, I'm just amazed that lots of things aren't being looked at.

Take the Mahmood claims, he should be questioned and looked at.

You could put together what you find and send it to Jones. If he doesn't have time to deal with it he prolly has minions who would.

ETA Not that he would be the best choice, but still . .

[LashL]

And his weight matters how?

Who said it does? You seem to have a hard time comprehending more than half a sentence at a time, and you seem to have a hard time picking out the important parts of a given post.

Edit to remove the rest of my post which explained what Docker failed to comprehend since Docker seems to be incapable of taking in more than one sentence at a time, so I'll do this in stages, as required rather than confuse him further.

[Docker]

You could put together what you find and send it to Jones. If he doesn't have time to deal with it he prolly has minions who would.

ETA Not that he would be the best choice, but still . .

I'm not saying Jones would be the best. I told you why hes my avatar. A friend of Jones would be a very good choice though, Greg Palast. He's a respected BBC journalist

[Docker]

Who said it does? You seem to have a hard time comprehending more than half a sentence at a time, and you seem to have a hard time picking out the important parts of a given post.

Edit to remove the rest of my post which explained what Docker failed to comprehend since Docker seems to be incapable of taking in more than one sentence at a time, so I'll do this in stages, as required rather than confuse the poor thing.

If all you can do is call people fat and nutcase then that is ver, very sad my friend.

[T.A.M.]

Go back and read the MANDATE of the commission, as I transcribed directly from the report. Now tell me, given that mandate, why the president should not have chosen the director?

Now, if you asked me, should BUSH get to choose who is on a commission to investigate his competence or lack their of, or negligence wrt 9/11, I would say, a resounding NO!!

Get my point. I do not dispute that a committee created to investigate someone shouldnt be chosen by that person, but that IS NOT what the 9/11 Commission was for, that was not its mandate.

TAM

[LashL]

If all you can do is call people fat and nutcase then that is ver, very sad my friend.

Not surprisingly, you fail entirely to comprehend, Docker.

What a waste of time and bandwidth.

[Docker]

Go back and read the MANDATE of the commission, as I transcribed directly from the report. Now tell me, given that mandate, why the president should not have chosen the director?

Now, if you asked me, should BUSH get to choose who is on a commission to investigate his competence or lack their of, or negligence wrt 9/11, I would say, a resounding NO!!

Get my point. I do not dispute that a committee created to investigate someone shouldnt be chosen by that person, but that IS NOT what the 9/11 Commission was for, that was not its mandate.

TAM

I agree. In my opinion the mandate is wrong. Bush should have had to appear alone. Those victims families are disgusted with that commission and rightly so.

[Docker]

Not surprisingly, you fail entirely to comprehend, Docker.

What a waste of time and bandwidth.

Well stop talking to me then

[T.A.M.]

Ok. If you are now saying that you disagree with the MANDATE of the commission, that is something entirely different.

I personally feel that at the time, the MANDATE was satisfactory, in that it addressed the issues put to it at the time. At that time there was no great cry to investigate the USG for incompetence. If the general public now believes there is, than perhaps a SEPERATE Commission or committee, to investigate this, is appropriate.

TAM

[Docker]

Ok. If you are now saying that you disagree with the MANDATE of the commission, that is something entirely different.

I personally feel that at the time, the MANDATE was satisfactory, in that it addressed the issues put to it at the time. At that time there was no great cry to investigate the USG for incompetence. If the general public now believes there is, than perhaps a SEPERATE Commission or committee, to investigate this, is appropriate.

TAM

You and I are in total agreement. A new commision with the ability to apportion blame and the ability to call any witness and ask any question is what we are asking for.

I sometimes wonder what people think the truth movement is asking for. They don't want a violent revolution and Bush to be lynched on the whitehouse lawn, well most don't?

[gumboot]

I'll tell you why I use Jones as my avatar. In my first thread here, on the ISI,
I was immediately accused of being an alex jones follower, despite never mentioning him. So I thought he would be the ideal choice.


Why are you people all so F-ing sensitive? Seriously. Harden up.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

A new commision with the ability to apportion blame and the ability to call any witness and ask any question is what we are asking for.


This says it all really. God bless the blame-generation.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

ah, but this point is where we may not agree, it is not quite so clear, and it is where alot of the "debunkers" part ways with the "truthers".

You see, while most debunkers would have no issue with investigating the USG for INCOMPETENCE, as we suggest, I think most truthers want the USG investigated for COMPLICITY, or taking part in the ORECHESTRATION of 9/11, for which most debunkers feel there is little if any evidence to warrant such an investigation. Such an investigation would require much more man power, and its implications would be so much more profound.

So Docker, you personally, you want the USG investigated for INCOMPETENCE, or COMPLICITY?

TAM

edit: my comments are all referring to DOCKER's post.

[Docker]

Why are you people all so F-ing sensitive? Seriously. Harden up.

-Gumboot

Who mentioned sensitive? I just found it amusing that the people here have a fixation on a man they dismiss as a lunatic. I thought the avatar would play that a bit.

[Docker]

ah, but this point is where we may not agree, it is not quite so clear, and it is where alot of the "debunkers" part ways with the "truthers".

You see, while most debunkers would have no issue with investigating the USG for INCOMPETENCE, as we suggest, I think most truthers want the USG investigated for COMPLICITY, or taking part in the ORECHESTRATION of 9/11, for which most debunkers feel there is little if any evidence to warrant such an investigation. Such an investigation would require much more man power, and its implications would be so much more profound.

So Docker, you personally, you want the USG investigated for INCOMPETENCE, or COMPLICITY?

TAM

Why is there a need to pick one? A truly open, thorough and independent investigation would reveal if there was complicity or negligence, without necessarily having to seek either.

I think the investigation would have to start by looking at the real issues. Not hologram planes etc, but the Mahmood business, the August 8th briefing etc

The families who debunkers claim they are defending should have input into the commision.

[LashL]

Well stop talking to me then

I haven't been "talking to" you except for the response to your stupid post that you directed to me, so your post is rather lame (as was your previous one in which you misquoted me).

That said, you've nothing to worry about since I'm not in the habit of "talking to" pathetic cretins who lack even the most basic of critical thinking skills, and who do nothing but post ridiculous, unsupported assertions that they cannot support with facts.

Here's a hint, though, since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how internet forums work, posting on a thread that you happen to be posting on, and commenting on one or even dozens of your unsubstantiated posts on a given thread, does not mean that someone is "talking to" you.

Edit to add: and none of that has anything to do with the fact that you have failed to comprehend what I said, and that your posts have been largely a waste of time and bandwidth.

[gumboot]

Who mentioned sensitive?


I did. Obviously.

-Gumboot

[defaultdotxbe]

ah, but this point is where we may not agree, it is not quite so clear, and it is where alot of the "debunkers" part ways with the "truthers".

You see, while most debunkers would have no issue with investigating the USG for INCOMPETENCE, as we suggest, I think most truthers want the USG investigated for COMPLICITY, or taking part in the ORECHESTRATION of 9/11, for which most debunkers feel there is little if any evidence to warrant such an investigation. Such an investigation would require much more man power, and its implications would be so much more profound.

So Docker, you personally, you want the USG investigated for INCOMPETENCE, or COMPLICITY?

TAM

edit: my comments are all referring to DOCKER's post.
ive often wondered if truthers realize that an investigation like that woudl require the commission to go through personal records and other private documents

do truthers think that have enough evidence to get a warrant issued? i know their usual response when asked for evidence is "thats why we need a new investigation" but i dont think thats going to fly in a courtroom

[T.A.M.]

ah, I am not so sure. You see to investigate, let us say negligence or incompetence, we would merely look at the actions or lack their of on the day, and days leading up to the attacks. This investigation would be limited in scope, and cost, and would not be looking into "Treason" etc...

An investigation into possible collaboration/planning of the 9/11 attacks by the USG would involve a much more extensive and exhaustive investigation, and as I said before, the implications would be astronomically more profound.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

This is where I think we differ. I believe there MAY be a case to investigate elements of the USG for incompetence, perhaps even negligence, but I DO NOT feel there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigating the USG for COMPLICITY/PLANNING/COLLABORATING in the 9/11 Attacks.

TAM

[Docker]

ah, I am not so sure. You see to investigate, let us say negligence or incompetence, we would merely look at the actions or lack their of on the day, and days leading up to the attacks. This investigation would be limited in scope, and cost, and would not be looking into "Treason" etc...

An investigation into possible collaboration/planning of the 9/11 attacks by the USG would involve a much more extensive and exhaustive investigation, and as I said before, the implications would be astronomically more profound.

TAM

I would set up the biggest commission in world history because, lets not forget, these were the biggest terrorist attacks in history and have had profound effects all over the world.

To quote steven jones, I would put all the evidence to the commision and "let the chips fall where they may.

If the government are complicit, it 's not the whole government. Just a rogue element with help from the CIA. I doubt bush has a clue what goes on around him, he's a figurehead.

[dirtywick]

ah, I am not so sure. You see to investigate, let us say negligence or incompetence, we would merely look at the actions or lack their of on the day, and days leading up to the attacks. This investigation would be limited in scope, and cost, and would not be looking into "Treason" etc...

An investigation into possible collaboration/planning of the 9/11 attacks by the USG would involve a much more extensive and exhaustive investigation, and as I said before, the implications would be astronomically more profound.

TAM

I agree. Any type of new investigation into incompetence relies on the acceptance that the event happened the way the 9/11 Commission report says it did. If you want a new investigation into possible incompetence/negligence that varies differently from it, you may as well ignore it completely and reinvestigate the whole thing. Of course, something like that, which completely throws away the previous and official findings, would probably require evidence.

I'm a little curious about something though, Docker. If all you wanted was to play the blame game, why start out with accusations against Zelikow, the man in charge of an investigation that's totally unrelated to what you're asking for?

[T.A.M.]

Well even that type of an investigation, while I feel there is not enough proof to warrant it, I would not totally disagree with.

What I do disagree with, are all the rediculous, unfounded theories that the vast majority of CTers propose as likelihoods, without even the smallest bit of evidence to back it up. This whole "We are just asking questions" doesnt work, because the movement considers itself a single unit, but has a world of disparity within it in terms of beliefs.

My suggestion is that the LIHOPS/LIHOIS seperate themselves from the idiocy of the MIHOP group, and then they might actually see some support.

TAM

[gumboot]

I would set up the biggest commission in world history because, lets not forget, these were the biggest terrorist attacks in history and have had profound effects all over the world.


I think what happened with 9/11 has been very clearly explained, and I think ample time and money has been spent investigating it.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Hi docker


"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Gide

That would mean that you really don't want to find the truth after all right? Tell me, with that quote in your sig, if there was an new investigation, you wouldn't be satisfied with what they find?

Asking questions is so much more fun...

Carry on


ETA: I'm not sure, but I think Gide was talking about religion and faith. (?)

[Crungy]

The families who debunkers claim they are defending should have input into the commision.


Like any group thrown together by outside forces, the families of 9/11 victims represent just about every political note in the scale. I'm a bit uneasy that much of the truthers that I've been exposed to, seem not to be genuinely interested in unwraveling the 9/11 mysteries, but instead licking their chops at the opportunity to be served the heads of Dubya and company on a platter.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, I read countless statements from the families of victims, that they'd like to nuke the "middle east".

On a related note, it's sad but interesting to read about the arguments posed by 9/11 families, that involve rebuilding at ground zero.

[Docker]

Hi docker


"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Gide

That would mean that you really don't want to find the truth after all right? Tell me, with that quote in your sig, if there was an new investigation, you wouldn't be satisfied with what they find?

Asking questions is so much more fun...

Carry on


ETA: I'm not sure, but I think Gide was talking about religion and faith. (?)

Thats not the take I have on that quote at all. I think it means that we should constantly seek to improve our knowledge, not sit back as if we know it all.

I notice you "debunked" the easier of my quotes.

Would you care to have a crack at debunking the second one?

[Docker]

I think what happened with 9/11 has been very clearly explained, and I think ample time and money has been spent investigating it.

-Gumboot

The victims families dont agree with you, so it is you pissing on victims graves , my friend.

[Crungy]

The victims families dont agree with you, so it is you pissing on victims graves , my friend.


Would it have been pissing on the victims graves if the US military didn't use the full might of their resources for revenge, as many 9/11 families supported in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

[gumboot]

The victims families dont agree with you, so it is you pissing on victims graves , my friend.


First off, I'm not your friend.

Second, disagreeing with someone does not equal pissing on a grave.

Thirdly, SOME family members of victims disagree. And some of those think the same sort of CT dribble that people like Alex Jones spew from their various bodily openings.

I'd be surprised if there WEREN'T some CT nut-jobs amongst families of victims. I mean, hell, there are tens of thousands of people who are directly related to 9/11 victims. If even 1% are CT nut jobs that's still 100+ people.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Thats not the take I have on that quote at all. I think it means that we should constantly seek to improve our knowledge, not sit back as if we know it all.

Point taken, that is your interpretation of it. That's the problem when you take quotes and try to fit them with the present situation.

As I said, I'm not sure what that quote means, I still think it has more to do with spirituality.

Any ways, could you answer my question?

Would you be satisfied with the results found by a new investigation?

Would you care to have a crack at debunking the second one?

It has been debunked, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64625&highlight=jovenko).

[eeyore1954]

Why is there a need to pick one? A truly open, thorough and independent investigation would reveal if there was complicity or negligence, without necessarily having to seek either.

I think the investigation would have to start by looking at the real issues. Not hologram planes etc, but the Mahmood business, the August 8th briefing etc

The families who debunkers claim they are defending should have input into the commision.

If my memory serves me corredtly wasn't there a family group that had a lot of input about who to question and some of the questions to be put to them? Wasn't it a family group that was a factor in there being a 9/11 commision instead of just the joint inquiry conducted the Senate and House intelligence committe ?

[Pardalis]

It has been debunked, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64625&highlight=jovenko).

Nah... Forget about that link, wrong thread. It seems the thread I was looking for is gone.

Nevertheless, it has been debunked here, and I have no time to redebunk it. Just to say, M. Jovenko is one, out of thousands of experts. Not what I would call compelling proof.

ETA: He also only saw videos of the fall of the builing, all of which showed pretty much the same angle. And I don't think he researched it very much.

[Docker]

First off, I'm not your friend.


-Gumboot

Im not your friend any more. I'm dealing with kids here.

[Docker]

Nah... Forget about that link, wrong thread. It seems the thread I was looking for is gone.

Nevertheless, it has been debunked here, and I have no time to redebunk it. Just to say, M. Jovenko is one, out of thousands of experts. Not what I would call compelling proof.

ETA: He also only saw videos of the fall of the builing, all of which showed pretty much the same angle. And I don't think he researched it very much.

But debunkers claim that not a single expert agrees with truthers. Do you now concede that that is wrong?

By the way, I dont claim an investigation would be perfect. If it was conducted properly I would accept its findings. You know as well as I do that 9/11 will be researched for the next 100 years whatever happens, and so it should be.

[Docker]

Incidentally the fact that you think any claim can be "debunked" and that is the end of it is a perfect illustration of the Gide quote.

[Pardalis]

Incidentally the fact that you think any claim can be "debunked" and that is the end of it is a perfect illustration of the Gide quote.

With all due respect, you don't know what he meant by that quote.

[gumboot]

Im not your friend any more. I'm dealing with kids here.


You never were my friend.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

But debunkers claim that not a single expert agrees with truthers. Do you now concede that that is wrong?

I doubt the expertise of this one expert.

By the way, I dont claim an investigation would be perfect.

Point taken.

[eeyore1954]

But debunkers claim that not a single expert agrees with truthers. Do you now concede that that is wrong?

By the way, I dont claim an investigation would be perfect. If it was conducted properly I would accept its findings. You know as well as I do that 9/11 will be researched for the next 100 years whatever happens, and so it should be.


Do many claim that not a single expert agrees with truthers? But in this example did you have an expert who was willing to make an expert opinion after looking at a very inconclusive video. There are thousand and thousands who could be called experts how could it be that a couple wouldn't agree.

Most will say there are very , very few experts who do agree and some that do make statements that practically no one in their field would view as valid. Woods and the toppling tree is a good example.

[Pardalis]

ah, nevermind...

[Dog Town]

Not just pants said....
But debunkers claim that not a single, credible, expert agrees with truthers.

Correct, and Fixed!

[Patricio Elicer]

I haven't been "talking to" you except for the response to your stupid post that you directed to me, so your post is rather lame (as was your previous one in which you misquoted me).

That said, you've nothing to worry about since I'm not in the habit of "talking to" pathetic cretins who lack even the most basic of critical thinking skills, and who do nothing but post ridiculous, unsupported assertions that they cannot support with facts.

Here's a hint, though, since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how internet forums work, posting on a thread that you happen to be posting on, and commenting on one or even dozens of your unsubstantiated posts on a given thread, does not mean that someone is "talking to" you.

Edit to add: and none of that has anything to do with the fact that you have failed to comprehend what I said, and that your posts have been largely a waste of time and bandwidth.

Please, keep the discussion civil, and refrain from making personal attacks.