And in the Left Corner...

[pomeroo]

The Marxist historian and far-left icon weighs in:

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”—-Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

The Marxist historian and far-left icon weighs in:

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”—-Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States

And to think I once respected this guy's intellect.

That was a long time ago--I'll have to go back and read some of the stuff he impressed me with back then...

What's the source of this quote?

[boloboffin]

Take it to the Politics forum, Ron.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Take it to the Politics forum, Ron.

It's about an historian who is giving credibility to David Ray Griffin, I think it fits within the conspiracy theory forum.

[boloboffin]

How does Ron frame it? What is Ron's interest in framing it that way?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

How does Ron frame it? What is Ron's interest in framing it that way?

I don't agree w/ the framing of it, but it does belong in the CT forum.

Ron, could you lay off the poltical spin on this part of the forum? I don't even use the terms left/right on the political section, because they're unnecessarily antagonistic and also vague.

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Take it to the Politics forum, Ron.

I am assuming that you're joking. The author of a Marxist screed that is required reading in many colleges and universities endorses Griffin's latest steaming pile and you think it belongs in politics, not conspiracy theories?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you can't be serious.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

I am assuming that you're joking. The author of a Marxist screed that is required reading in many colleges and universities endorses Griffin's latest steaming pile and you think it belongs in politics, not conspiracy theories?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you can't be serious.

I refuse to be the next contestant in Ron v. Leftist.

[T.A.M.]

While I personally lean decently left, I have to agree this belongs here.

I feel the point can be made, that the more leftists, particularly DEMOCRATS, that actually give credence to the truthers, the more harm they do to the legitimate left (as Monbiot has discussed).

TAM

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boloboffin

How does Ron frame it? What is Ron's interest in framing it that way?

This is actually a very good question. I will attempt to explain my position.

Rightwing nuts like Alex Jones have zero cultural cachet. Jones and the deranged Morgan Reynolds are so far outside the zeitgeist that if they didn't hate Bush so much, no one would have ever heard of them.

The phenomenon I'm talking about can be traced back to the sixties and early seventies when Tom Wolfe described it perfectly as "Radical Chic." Beer-soaked neo-Aryans were, and continue to be, confined to the fever swamps where they belong, but murderous, drug-running thugs like the Black Panthers got to be honored guests at fund-raising soirees organized by the likes of Leonard Bernstein.

Jones is a crackpot; Zinn is an academic superstar; Rosie is a celebrity.

What the lefties can do that the rightwing loons can't is introduce the conspiracy liars' pernicious lunacy to a much, much wider audience. They can pollute the mainstream; Jones and Reynolds have no audience outside the fringe blogs.

The 911 fantasy movement is not strictly a leftist movement. The big-name leftists who embrace woo-woo are situated to do damage, and they know it.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

This is actually a very good question. I will attempt to explain my position.

Rightwing nuts like Alex Jones have zero cultural cachet. Jones and the deranged Morgan Reynolds are so far outside the zeitgeist that if they didn't hate Bush so much, no one would have ever heard of them.

The phenomenon I'm talking about can be traced back to the sixties and early seventies when Tom Wolfe described it perfectly as "Radical Chic." Beer-soaked neo-Aryans were, and continue to be, confined to the fever swamps where they belong, but murderous, drug-running thugs like the Black Panthers got to be honored guests at fund-raising soirees organized by the likes of Leonard Bernstein.

Jones is a crackpot; Zinn is an academic superstar; Rosie is a celebrity.

What the lefties can do that the rightwing loons can't is introduce the conspiracy liars' pernicious lunacy to a much, much wider audience. They can pollute the mainstream; Jones and Reynolds have no audience outside the fringe blogs.

The 911 fantasy movement is not strictly a leftist movement. The big-name leftists who embrace woo-woo are situated to do damage, and they known it.

Very interesting. I had never really thought of it in that direction, but you are correct. So far the left stars they have acquired have been, for the most part, either know for being off the edge, or have been so far down the totem pole of hollywood to have little to no effect in that way (Charlie Sheen). Rosie, however, on "The View" may be a very different kettle of fish.

TAM

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

What the lefties can do that the rightwing loons can't is introduce the conspiracy liars' pernicious lunacy to a much, much wider audience. They can pollute the mainstream; Jones and Reynolds have no audience outside the fringe blogs.

The 911 fantasy movement is not strictly a leftist movement. The big-name leftists who embrace woo-woo are situated to do damage, and they know it.

If you're talking only about 9/11 CTism, then you should APPLAUD the notion that lefties are lining up to hawk the "inside job" insanity. Quickest way to self-destruction. As your boy Bush says: Bring 'em on.

If you're talking about rightwing loons having access to a wide audience? Limbaugh. Hannity. Coulter. O'Reilly. Beck. Savage. Boortz. Malkin. Ingraham. Robertson. Falwell. And many of lesser "stature".

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

If you're talking only about 9/11 CTism, then you should APPLAUD the notion that lefties are lining up to hawk the "inside job" insanity. Quickest way to self-destruction. As your boy Bush says: Bring 'em on.

If you're talking about rightwing loons having access to a wide audience? Limbaugh. Hannity. Coulter. O'Reilly. Beck. Savage. Boortz. Malkin. Ingraham. Robertson. Falwell. And many of lesser "stature".

None of the names you mention is in the same ballpark as Alex Jones. They aren't even playing the same sport, to stretch the metaphor a bit further. That you seem to think differently is the product of your bias and nothing more. I rarely listen to any of those fools you list, but I have heard all of them at one time or another. It is much easier for a kooky left winger to be considered mainstream than for a kooky right winger to do so. People like Limbaugh and Hannity are wrong more often than not, but they don't rise to the level of kookery exhibited by Alex Jones or even Rosie.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by Freddy

None of the names you mention is in the same ballpark as Alex Jones. They aren't even playing the same sport, to stretch the metaphor a bit further. That you seem to think differently is the product of your bias and nothing more. I rarely listen to any of those fools you list, but I have heard all of them at one time or another. It is much easier for a kooky left winger to be considered mainstream than for a kooky right winger to do so. People like Limbaugh and Hannity are wrong more often than not, but they don't rise to the level of kookery exhibited by Alex Jones or even Rosie.

I think Ron is just looking for any way possible to bash the Left in the Conspiracy forum. He doesn't want to go to the Politics forum. He wants to get political right here. Maybe it's backlash from Ann Coulter getting so much flak about her Edwards bashing? Pure speculation.

Alex Jones, by the way, is neither left nor right. He's just a lunatic, a New World Order freak.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Alex Jones, by the way, is neither left nor right. He's just a lunatic, a New World Order freak.

Jones is a mangled approximation of a libertarian.

[gumboot]

Er... aren't we talking about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

Thus isn't Ron saying that, while other CTers are too off-the-wall to be taken seriously by the general populace, people like Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Zinn will be taken seriously by the populace?

Thus isn't he saying these "lefties" have more credibility in the eyes of the populace?

-Gumboot

[Brainster]

What I think Ron is saying here is that if you don't police your own side of the aisle, partisans from the other side will use the wacky positions of some of your members to tar your political philosophy with the association.

What Zinn deserves is a thorough rhetorical horse-whipping from the left wing intelligentsia. Liberals may not think this goes on among the right wing, but I can assure you that's not true. Look, for example at the war of words going on between John Hawkins and Jerome Corsi over at Human events. When Corsi signed onto the "Stop the North American Union" crap, Hawkins and Michael Medved did not hesitate to lay into him. And why? Because they know the NAU fantasy is poison for the conservative movement, just as the 9-11 Denial Movement is poison for the liberal movement.

I have often remarked that some of the best debunking of 9-11 Denial has been done by the organs of the left--The Nation and Counterpunch, Noam Chomsky, etc., have done yeoman work. Kos prohibits 9-11 Ct Diaries and bans their posters. And there is no doubt in my mind that while they all see 9-11 CTs as quackery, the reason they have been so vigorous in opposing it is because they see the risk of it catching on among their people, leading them to an intellectual dead-end.

Zinn is an important man of the Left, and his endorsement of Griffin's nutty stuff encourages Leftists to consider wasting their time. As others have remarked, this should cheer Ron up to no end.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Er... aren't we talking about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

Thus isn't Ron saying that, while other CTers are too off-the-wall to be taken seriously by the general populace, people like Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Zinn will be taken seriously by the populace?

Thus isn't he saying these "lefties" have more credibility in the eyes of the populace?

-Gumboot

No.

Ron is doing just exactly what Perry Logan mentioned while he was still in the JREF forum. Perry went off the track, got baited, took it, did some irresponsible posts and that was it.

But Logan was correct in that Ron wants to get his right wing agenda into this forum under the guise of: Oh, the populace is going to be absolutely slain by the evil left-wingers because they have the ears, eyes, hearts and minds of everyone in America.

Howard Zinn, a person whom I was not even aware of, is required reading in American colleges? Really? How come when I went to college, they didn't make me read him?

Instead of bashing the Left in the politics forum where it belongs, Ron cooked this up as a Trojan horse. Seems to have worked, eh? Look at how many right-leaning JREFers are rushing to his side.

Take it elsewhere, Ron. Or would you, and other JREFers, like me to start posting threads in the Conspiracy forum with derogatory references in the titles to the right wing and Republicans? I can, you know.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Howard Zinn, a person whom I was not even aware of, is required reading in American colleges? Really? How come when I went to college, they didn't make me read him?

Maybe you didn't study the right topics...

Quote:

In the years since the first edition of A People's History was published in 1980, it has been assigned reading both as a high school and college textbook, and is one of the most widely known examples of critical pedagogy.

Source

Do you refute pomeroo's claim that people like this Howard Zinn and Rosie O'Donnell will be considered credible by more Americans than people like Alex Jones?

It seems pretty obvious to me. O'Donnell has mainstream media coverage that I gather is relatively popular. Zinn is read in American schools and has a huge impressive collection of works to his name, plus numerous acknowledgements of his successes and achievements.

In contrast, about five minutes in the presence of people like Alex Jones, Judy Woods, or Killtown (Sorry, couldn't resist!) will convince most people they are raving lunatics.

Admittedly I fail to see how this has anything to do with left or right at all. It's about respectability.

Had Charlie Sheen instead been a currently popular A-list actor I think he would have fallen into the same boat.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

No.

Ron is doing just exactly what Perry Logan mentioned while he was still in the JREF forum. Perry went off the track, got baited, took it, did some irresponsible posts and that was it.

But Logan was correct in that Ron wants to get his right wing agenda into this forum under the guise of: Oh, the populace is going to be absolutely slain by the evil left-wingers because they have the ears, eyes, hearts and minds of everyone in America.

Howard Zinn, a person whom I was not even aware of, is required reading in American colleges? Really? How come when I went to college, they didn't make me read him?

Instead of bashing the Left in the politics forum where it belongs, Ron cooked this up as a Trojan horse. Seems to have worked, eh? Look at how many right-leaning JREFers are rushing to his side.

Take it elsewhere, Ron. Or would you, and other JREFers, like me to start posting threads in the Conspiracy forum with derogatory references in the titles to the right wing and Republicans? I can, you know.

I disagree, and agree with Brainster. I was blog posting in reply to Ron long before he came here to JREF. He may lean right, but I do not think he ever came to this forum with the intention of spreading a "Right Wing" Agenda. He has never said anything to me in opposition, yet he knows I lean much left of center on most issues.

This Zinn Fellow is an influencial man on the left. If anything, this should be a warning to those in the USA, on the left, to keep your radicals in check, or they will undermine all the hard work the left has strived for...for more, see the article by Monbiot on this matter.

TAM

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Howard Zinn, a person whom I was not even aware of, is required reading in American colleges? Really? How come when I went to college, they didn't make me read him?

His book "A People's History of the United States" is probably one of the biggest selling textbooks of all time. This is not some unknown.

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

I think Ron is just looking for any way possible to bash the Left in the Conspiracy forum. He doesn't want to go to the Politics forum. He wants to get political right here. Maybe it's backlash from Ann Coulter getting so much flak about her Edwards bashing? Pure speculation.

Alex Jones, by the way, is neither left nor right. He's just a lunatic, a New World Order freak.

Conspi, you just don't get it. Your speculation is silly. What possible purpose could I have for bashing the left in an apolitical forum? The Republican Party isn't paying me for recruiting. I have stated previously that I applaud the intellectual integrity of liberals who speak out against the fantasists' nonsense because they have voluntarily placed themselves in the position of defending a man whose policies they abhor. It's easier for me to argue that Bush was not complicit in the attacks of 9/11 than it is for TAM, Mark Roberts, or yourself.

Please hear what I'm saying. When a celebrity lefty like Rosie embraces the conspiracy madness, it is not a political issue. All prominent conservative pundits reject the madness, as do all well-known liberal commentators. But, nobody on the right can inflict comparable damage to an icon of daytime TV who makes it respectable to call members of the American government the real terrorists.

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

No.

Ron is doing just exactly what Perry Logan mentioned while he was still in the JREF forum. Perry went off the track, got baited, took it, did some irresponsible posts and that was it.

My feud with Perry started as a response to an astonishingly puerile list he posted here.

Quote:

But Logan was correct in that Ron wants to get his right wing agenda into this forum under the guise of: Oh, the populace is going to be absolutely slain by the evil left-wingers because they have the ears, eyes, hearts and minds of everyone in America.

Instead of reading my mind, why not read my words? Mainstream culture has a decidely leftward tilt. The left controls Hollywood, all the major networks, all but one of the cable networks, and with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, the editorial pages of the most influential newspapers. The right has talk radio and Fox News. Of course, the left shapes our pop culture to a far greater degree than any countervailing influences from the right. Evan Thomas of Newsweek, a liberal Democrat, wrote in 2004 that media bias is worth 10-15 points to the Democratic candidate in a presidential election. He later decided that his estimate was too high and revised it down to 5-7 points.

Quote:

Howard Zinn, a person whom I was not even aware of, is required reading in American colleges? Really? How come when I went to college, they didn't make me read him?

Come on. Zinn is second only to Noam Chomsky as the far-left's academic guru. Surely you aren't pretending that he is an obscure figure I dragged in to no purpose? My "agenda" doesn't exist.

Quote:

Instead of bashing the Left in the politics forum where it belongs, Ron cooked this up as a Trojan horse. Seems to have worked, eh? Look at how many right-leaning JREFers are rushing to his side.

Do you fail to realize that I am reporting that Howard Zinn, author of a hugely popular textbook with unprecedented sales, has officially embraced the 911 fantasy madness? Why do you act as though this is a political issue?

Quote:

Take it elsewhere, Ron. Or would you, and other JREFers, like me to start posting threads in the Conspiracy forum with derogatory references in the titles to the right wing and Republicans? I can, you know.

No, you can't, as you know. You can't offer the name of a single prominent conservative who takes the conspiracy crap seriously. There are none. Rightwing fantasists are raving, delusional loons like Morgan Reynolds and professional crackpots like Jones.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What I think Ron is saying here is that if you don't police your own side of the aisle, partisans from the other side will use the wacky positions of some of your members to tar your political philosophy with the association.

What Zinn deserves is a thorough rhetorical horse-whipping from the left wing intelligentsia. Liberals may not think this goes on among the right wing, but I can assure you that's not true. Look, for example at the war of words going on between John Hawkins and Jerome Corsi over at Human events. When Corsi signed onto the "Stop the North American Union" crap, Hawkins and Michael Medved did not hesitate to lay into him. And why?

Quote:

Because they know the NAU fantasy is poison for the conservative movement, just as the 9-11 Denial Movement is poison for the liberal movement.

Bullseye!

Quote:

I have often remarked that some of the best debunking of 9-11 Denial has been done by the organs of the left--The Nation and Counterpunch, Noam Chomsky, etc., have done yeoman work. Kos prohibits 9-11 Ct Diaries and bans their posters. And there is no doubt in my mind that while they all see 9-11 CTs as quackery, the reason they have been so vigorous in opposing it is because they see the risk of it catching on among their people, leading them to an intellectual dead-end.

Again, a direct hit. The phenomenon Charles Krauthammer termed "Bush Derangement Syndrome" makes it terribly easy for those afflicted with it to abandon all pretenses to rationality.

Quote:

Zinn is an important man of the Left, and his endorsement of Griffin's nutty stuff encourages Leftists to consider wasting their time. As others have remarked, this should cheer Ron up to no end.

Well, Brainster, I trust that you're making a joke because, seriously, far from cheering me up, it terrifies me. If it becomes acceptable to campaign against a politician whose policies you oppose by pretending that he's a comic book villain, the whole nation suffers. I can't repeat often enough that the fantasy movement must be viewed as a lynch mob. They have framed their victims and no evidence could possibly pose an obstacle to the planned hanging. When people like Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Zinn--a professional intellectual, for chrissakes--move the political discourse into the fever swamps, we have all entered dangerous waters. If you can say with impunity that a conservative politician is a mass-murdering terrorist, what can Joe McCarthy be criticized for? Plainly, anything goes.

[boloboffin]

Oo, I hate myself for doing this, but...

1. I'm going to take the well made point that people like Zinn and Rosie have more access to an audience than Alex Jones or even Griffin. But I do submit to you a qualified Perry Logan point that if Al Gore had been president on 9/11, we would be seeing elements of 9/11 woo cited approvingly on Fox News Channel - certainly things like Hopsicker-land, where they couldn't get caught up in physical lies. Oh, yes, we would. I doubt we'd see much plane denial or CD twaddle there - it's too easily disproven.

But then again, Griffin doesn't cite any of that on this summary page of his, does he?* I guarantee you that if a Democrat had been in office, every Fox viewer would know where to find things like that. Every Rush listener would be able to find that page in Rush's Pile of Stuff. If names like Clinton and Gore and Lieberman had been there instead of Bush and Cheney, I guarantee it.

And the pretense otherwise is itself a steaming pile.

2. Just how much of an endorsement is Zinn's statement? Didn't Bush use 9/11 to get us into two wars? Is anyone here surprised to hear Zinn call American wars immoral (IOW, did Zinn need 9/11 to question the motives behind American wars)? Aren't Griffin's questions "provocative"? Don't we "investigate and address" these kinds of questions 24/7 here at JREF and the other forums at which we post?

Sure, Zinn has an unapologetic agenda. In this country, we are politically unable to examine our own government's real faults in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. I do believe they are there, and if they stretch back into the Clinton adminstration and beyond, fine. Root out the problem. Fix it. But we can't fix it if we can't even talk about it - and when we can't talk about it, the more outlandish questions fester.

I am not afraid of Griffin's questions being investigated and addressed. I doubt Griffin will be happy with the answers. The truth will out.

*not an endorsement of anything on that page

[T.A.M.]

While I agree that "Legitimate" questions deserve to debated, even investigated, I equate alot of Griffin's "questions" to asking "why didn't we look into the possibility that leprachauns had a role in 9/11"...well maybe not quite that silly, but you get my point.

Take his 9 points in the film, or take his 115 questions/points he has written out, and read them back to yourself, and ask yourself, how many of these questions are legitimate enough to warrant an "investigation". A discussion is one thing, that is another.

TAM

[pomeroo]

[quote]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Oo, I hate myself for doing this, but...

1. I'm going to take the well made point that people like Zinn and Rosie have more access to an audience than Alex Jones or even Griffin.

Quote:

But I do submit to you a qualified Perry Logan point that if Al Gore had been president on 9/11, we would be seeing elements of 9/11 woo cited approvingly on Fox News Channel

This is a Perry Logan-style point and it is slanderous. I disagree routinely on political issues with Keith Olbermann and the interchangeable leftists on CNN, but they do not lend credence to the insane lies of the fantasists. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Fox would traffic in such madness if a Democrat were President. Your anger at Fox stems from the fact that it alone among mainstream and cable news outlets does not share your bias.

Quote:

- certainly things like Hopsicker-land, where they couldn't get caught up in physical lies. Oh, yes, we would. I doubt we'd see much plane denial or CD twaddle there - it's too easily disproven.

But then again, Griffin doesn't cite any of that on this summary page of his, does he?* I guarantee you that if a Democrat had been in office, every Fox viewer would know where to find things like that. Every Rush listener would be able to find that page in Rush's Pile of Stuff. If names like Clinton and Gore and Lieberman had been there instead of Bush and Cheney, I guarantee it.

And the pretense otherwise is itself a steaming pile.

2. Just how much of an endorsement is Zinn's statement?

Quote:

Didn't Bush use 9/11 to get us into two wars?

This, in succinct form, is the mindset I keep calling to the attention of everyone on this forum. Please tell me if Boloboffin's question originates in politics or the realm of woo.

Quote:

Is anyone here surprised to hear Zinn call American wars immoral (IOW, did Zinn need 9/11 to question the motives behind American wars)? Aren't Griffin's questions "provocative"? Don't we "investigate and address" these kinds of questions 24/7 here at JREF and the other forums at which we post?



Sure, Zinn has an unapologetic agenda.

He has an unapologetically Marxist agenda that seeks to blame America no matter how far he has to stray from objective reality.

Quote:

In this country, we are politically unable to examine our own government's real faults in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. I do believe they are there, and if they stretch back into the Clinton adminstration and beyond, fine. Root out the problem. Fix it. But we can't fix it if we can't even talk about it - and when we can't talk about it, the more outlandish questions fester.

I am not afraid of Griffin's questions being investigated and addressed.

Again, why the maddening implication that Griffin's "questions" have not been investigated?

Quote:

I doubt Griffin will be happy with the answers. The truth will out.

The tense is odd and troubling. Griffin is not happy with the answers. The truth has come out.

Tell me: Am I arguing politics or something else?

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

This is a Perry Logan-style point and it is slanderous. I disagree routinely on political issues with Keith Olbermann and the interchangeable leftists on CNN, but they do not lend credence to the insane lies of the fantasists. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Fox would traffic in such madness if a Democrat were President. Your anger at Fox stems from the fact that it alone among mainstream and cable news outlets does not share your bias.

Yes, it is a Perry Logan-style point and that's why I labeled it as such.

But it is also correct as I stated it. Did you look at the summary page link I provided, Ron? (btw, name's Joseph, feel free) As I said, there's no CD twaddle and no plane denial on that page. Hell, I debunked 90% of the points on that page in 30 seconds. But if President Gore had shrugged off the 6 Aug 2001 PDB, Sean Hannity would have had the date tattooed on Alan Colmes' forehead.

Look at what I said and try to choke down your joy at being able to bash Perry Logan one more time. I'm training to be a live captioner, and I just practiced on Fox News today. That nutso ad accusing Hillary Clinton of participating in covering up the Juanita Broaddrick situation? John Gibson made sure that his viewers knew the ad was out there, and what to look for. He didn't "endorse" it. He just described it in enough detail to let his viewers know what to look for. In exactly the same way, every Fox viewer would know where to find that page on the internet if Gore and Lieberman had resisted an inquiry into the attacks and then only have testified together before select members of the panel.

Rush mentioned the [rule8]ed Vince Foster murder rumors on air! Oh, yeah, he immediately retracted, "I can't say that," yada yada yada. He didn't endorse it - he facilitated it being spread. It is exactly what you decry in Rosie and Zinn, and the hell Fox and Limbaugh wouldn't be facilitating 9/11 woo if it wasn't their guy's watch.

Quote:

This, in succinct form, is the mindset I keep calling to the attention of everyone on this forum. Please tell me if Boloboffin's question originates in politics or the realm of woo.

That was in response to my question, "Didn't Bush use 9/11 to get us into two wars?"

Well, didn't he?

Quote:

Again, why the maddening implication that Griffin's "questions" have not been investigated?

The maddening implication is in your head.

Quote:

The tense is odd and troubling. Griffin is not happy with the answers. The truth has come out.

Tell me: Am I arguing politics or something else?

You are arguing politics.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

But then again, Griffin doesn't cite any of that on this summary page of his, does he?*

I think you need to look a bit closer into his claims...

From his "myths about 9/11"

Quote:

Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon.

And then there's his 115 points from his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions:

Here's the first 15:

Quote:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

Griffin is a full-blown Troofer Woo of the highest order.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

I didn't mean to imply that Griffin wasn't a full-blown Troofer Woo of the highest order. But plenty of personalities on Fox News know how to lateral to their woo guys just as surely as Zinn does to Griffin.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

I didn't mean to imply that Griffin wasn't a full-blown Troofer Woo of the highest order. But plenty of personalities on Fox News know how to lateral to their woo guys just as surely as Zinn does to Griffin.

That link is about football. You will have to explain it to us non-Americans, because I don't get it...

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

That's why I linked, so I wouldn't have to explain the term!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

In American football, a lateral pass is different from a forward pass in three main ways. First, a forward pass advances the ball (it goes in front of the thrower) while a lateral pass must be to the rear (if ever so slightly). Second, the forward pass can only be thrown behind the line of scrimmage (where the ball starts in a new play) whereas laterals can be anywhere. Finally, a forward pass can only happen once during a play - laterals can happen as often as the team with the ball risks it.

The metaphor comes from how the play is perceived on field. Laterals don't happen a lot - usually the quarterback is throwing forward and steps well back from the line of scrimmage. The defensive line is expecting this.

But the quarterback could lateral to another player, who then could execute a forward pass. And laterals can go on all day - as long as the ball is not being thrown forward, the play continues with the new player in possession. Even if a lateral hits the ground, it's just a fumble which can be recovered and continued to be run. (forwards hit the ground and the ball is down - end of play) The constant shift in defensive posture is what the lateral is meant to take advantage of.

Zinn sees a tactical advantage for his own objectives in letting Griffin run with the ball. But he won't outright endorse everything Griffin's saying (the forward pass). So he laterals. And Fox News is a champ at lateraling to woo.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Oo, I hate myself for doing this, but...

1. I'm going to take the well made point that people like Zinn and Rosie have more access to an audience than Alex Jones or even Griffin. But I do submit to you a qualified Perry Logan point that if Al Gore had been president on 9/11, we would be seeing elements of 9/11 woo cited approvingly on Fox News Channel - certainly things like Hopsicker-land, where they couldn't get caught up in physical lies. Oh, yes, we would. I doubt we'd see much plane denial or CD twaddle there - it's too easily disproven.

What would be out there would be the incompetence argument. And it would be extremely unfair, but you know people would point to Bojinka and say that the Gore/Clinton administration had been warned. A small fragment of kooks would be saying LIHOP or MIHOP, but would not be getting any traction aside from World Net Daily (who are endorsing the NAU crap).

Quote:

But then again, Griffin doesn't cite any of that on this summary page of his, does he?* I guarantee you that if a Democrat had been in office, every Fox viewer would know where to find things like that. Every Rush listener would be able to find that page in Rush's Pile of Stuff. If names like Clinton and Gore and Lieberman had been there instead of Bush and Cheney, I guarantee it.

No, it would still be a kook fringe thing like today, with the difference being Tom Tancredo instead of Cynthia McKinney and Mel Gibson instead of Charlie Sheen. Ron Paul would still be out there. This has never been more than a lunatic issue anyway.

Quote:

And the pretense otherwise is itself a steaming pile.

2. Just how much of an endorsement is Zinn's statement? Didn't Bush use 9/11 to get us into two wars? Is anyone here surprised to hear Zinn call American wars immoral (IOW, did Zinn need 9/11 to question the motives behind American wars)? Aren't Griffin's questions "provocative"? Don't we "investigate and address" these kinds of questions 24/7 here at JREF and the other forums at which we post?

Separate your support of Zinn on his other positions from his support of 9-11 nuttery. He does the peace movement an incredible disservice by lending his name to this crackpot stuff. And don't try to defend Zinn by parsing his words. Is he helping to sell the book with his review or not? By doing so is he helping the crackpots? You can't convince me that he doesn't know what's going on.

Quote:

Sure, Zinn has an unapologetic agenda. In this country, we are politically unable to examine our own government's real faults in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. I do believe they are there, and if they stretch back into the Clinton adminstration and beyond, fine. Root out the problem. Fix it. But we can't fix it if we can't even talk about it - and when we can't talk about it, the more outlandish questions fester.

In my opinion, 9-11 was not inevitable, but that small mistakes compounded with a general unwillingness to look at truly astounding plots, conspired to create the situation that we saw unfold. How many airplane hijackings had we observed over the years? And how many had played out on the tarmac in Havana or Malta with 99% of the people surviving?

Therefore there was an underlying assumption that guided the passengers, on three of the four planes: that they had a very good chance of remaining alive if they didn't do anything. Only Flight 93 knew different, and their choices reveal the obvious 9/12 attitude. Similar calculations were being made on the ground; erroneously as we all know now.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

If names like Clinton and Gore and Lieberman had been there instead of Bush and Cheney, I guarantee it.

Clinton and Gore were in power for the OKC bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the African embassy bombings. I don't recall any right-wing pundits or talking heads claiming that those attacks were orchestrated by the Clinton Admin. In fact, the CT's are claiming that these were somehow related to Bush/Cheney and their 9/11 CT. Hell, they've even found what they claim to be a picture of Bush 41 outside the Texas School Book Depository to try to tie Bush to the JFK assasination.

Sorry bolobffin, I find your speculations without merit. Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

[busherie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Clinton and Gore were in power for the OKC bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the African embassy bombings. I don't recall any right-wing pundits or talking heads claiming that those attacks were orchestrated by the Clinton Admin. In fact, the CT's are claiming that these were somehow related to Bush/Cheney and their 9/11 CT. Hell, they've even found what they claim to be a picture of Bush 41 outside the Texas School Book Depository to try to tie Bush to the JFK assasination.

Sorry bolobffin, I find your speculations without merit. Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

Don't forget the fact that 9/11 was very different. it involved many terrorists,a complicated plan using 4 aircrafts in a 2 hours long attack, simultenously.

Moreover, compared to other attacks, the amount of intel pinting to the high probability of the incoming attacks were huge. it was widely known in Pakistan, as shown by the Paki schoolboy pointing at the towers saying "they won't be standing soon".

The huge difference is, now we know retrospectively how the US administration used the attacks for their own plans, and how much intel was around, and how the administration ignored them (able danger and so much more, Clarke crying for attention, PDB, etc etc).

So Zin is right: LIHOP theories deserve an investigation.

PS: I think however the WTC 1 and 2 theories have a good chance of blowing up the whole invesigation, since it's such BS.

busherie

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by busherie

Don't forget the fact that 9/11 was very different. it involved many terrorists,a complicated plan using 4 aircrafts in a 2 hours long attack, simultenously.

What a load of crock.

Anyone could have pulled off 9/11. The only really vital ingredient is finding people willing to kill themselves. Radical Islam has that in spades.

Operation Bojinka was infinately more complex than 9/11. The tactics used by Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets were infinately more complex.

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What would be out there would be the incompetence argument. And it would be extremely unfair, but you know people would point to Bojinka and say that the Gore/Clinton administration had been warned. A small fragment of kooks would be saying LIHOP or MIHOP, but would not be getting any traction aside from World Net Daily (who are endorsing the NAU crap).

Yes, and the Democratic side could point to the millennium plot and show that terrorist attacks had been stopped. And stories from WND find their way to Fox News from time to time. I refer all to the Daily Howler and Media Matters websites for a thorough description of that on-going process.

Quote:

No, it would still be a kook fringe thing like today, with the difference being Tom Tancredo instead of Cynthia McKinney and Mel Gibson instead of Charlie Sheen. Ron Paul would still be out there. This has never been more than a lunatic issue anyway.

Mel and Charlie are hardly equals in the Hollywood pecking order, even with Mel's recent outburst. Money talks. But Barbra Streisand is at least Mel's stature, and you'd better believe James Brolin (and thus Rosie) isn't spouting off about 9/11 woo without her knowing about it. So six of one, half dozen of the other.

Quote:

Separate your support of Zinn on his other positions from his support of 9-11 nuttery. He does the peace movement an incredible disservice by lending his name to this crackpot stuff. And don't try to defend Zinn by parsing his words. Is he helping to sell the book with his review or not? By doing so is he helping the crackpots? You can't convince me that he doesn't know what's going on.

I don't intend to. Zinn is trying to help Griffin sell books. But his words are so eminently parsable that I doubt a writer like Zinn wouldn't be aware of it. The only defense I intend is to show that the endorsement is worded in a way to not endorse the content per se, but the intent of the book.

Quote:

In my opinion, 9-11 was not inevitable, but that small mistakes compounded with a general unwillingness to look at truly astounding plots, conspired to create the situation that we saw unfold. How many airplane hijackings had we observed over the years? And how many had played out on the tarmac in Havana or Malta with 99% of the people surviving?

Therefore there was an underlying assumption that guided the passengers, on three of the four planes: that they had a very good chance of remaining alive if they didn't do anything. Only Flight 93 knew different, and their choices reveal the obvious 9/12 attitude. Similar calculations were being made on the ground; erroneously as we all know now.

"a general unwillingness to look at truly astounding plots" - That was something the Clinton administration had developed at a terrible price, and a Gore administration would have had from day one. The Bush administration, of course, developed it on 9/12.

And I do not fault the response of anyone on the ground that day. Well, Bush's kneejerk reaction to continue the photo op in Sarasota, that was pretty crappy. But even that in Bush-logic-land was meant to help the country in some way. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration let those attacks happen on purpose, and would have stopped them if they'd glimpsed the plot.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Clinton and Gore were in power for the OKC bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the African embassy bombings. I don't recall any right-wing pundits or talking heads claiming that those attacks were orchestrated by the Clinton Admin. In fact, the CT's are claiming that these were somehow related to Bush/Cheney and their 9/11 CT. Hell, they've even found what they claim to be a picture of Bush 41 outside the Texas School Book Depository to try to tie Bush to the JFK assasination.

Sorry bolobffin, I find your speculations without merit. Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

Do you recall Waco and Ruby Ridge? Do you recall the phrase "Wag The Dog"? Do you recall an investigation into a failed land deal in Arkansas? Do you recall right-wing pundits or talking heads saying Clinton passed on Osama? Do you recall "earth tones" and "Love Canal" and "Love Story"?

Do you think that these people, if they'd learned of a 6 Aug 2001 PDB with President Gore's name attached, do you think that these people would have given Gore the benefit of the doubt?

In many cases, BDS is misdiagnosed. It is Government Derangement Syndrome that many have, and clearly the 9/11 CT woo is generated by people who would curse a Democrat as soon as a Republican in office. And that is the final failure of any attempt to make this a issue about left wing or right wing. This woo comes from a different part of the bird.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Do you recall Waco and Ruby Ridge? Do you recall the phrase "Wag The Dog"? Do you recall an investigation into a failed land deal in Arkansas? Do you recall right-wing pundits or talking heads saying Clinton passed on Osama? Do you recall "earth tones" and "Love Canal" and "Love Story"?

Do you think that these people, if they'd learned of a 6 Aug 2001 PDB with President Gore's name attached, do you think that these people would have given Gore the benefit of the doubt?

In many cases, BDS is misdiagnosed. It is Government Derangement Syndrome that many have, and clearly the 9/11 CT woo is generated by people who would curse a Democrat as soon as a Republican in office. And that is the final failure of any attempt to make this a issue about left wing or right wing. This woo comes from a different part of the bird.

I agree, the term Goverment Derrangement Syndrome is more appropriate.

TAM

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I agree, the term Goverment Derrangement Syndrome is more appropriate.

TAM

I agree. I recall "Wag The Dog" (the film that implied Clinton invented Bosnia to distract from home scandals) was made by "liberals" who run Hollywood.

-Gumboot