The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories

[Len Colby]

Cliff your reply was so weak that I don’t mind taking the brief amount of time away from the pre-Lenten bacchian festivities need to reply. If you thought you’d pull a snow job citing a book I and most members of the forum don’t have at ready disposal you were wrong because Rupert’s rubbish is available through Google Books.

http://tiny.cc/rubicon

Gentle reader, please read Michael Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon,

specifically Chapter 19 -- "Wargames And High Tech: Paralyzing The System To Pull Off The Attacks", pg. 333+.

OK please cite the passages were he spelled out 1) how the exercises adversely affected the air defense system 2) that they were ordered by Chenney. Note that while he discusses various exercises that morning only 2 – 3 were related to air defense.

Also, for information on ISI's Lt. Gen. Ahmed see CTR pg 118-120.

As mentioned in my previous post all reports I’ve seen that Ahmed was they money man cite unnamed Indian intelligence/government officials. Ruppert is no different. He did however try to obscure the fact though. He acknowledged that the account in the Times of India cited “an official Indian intelligence report” he said AFP’s article was based on “the intelligence source”. If one assumed the source was French they were wrong the AFP article was datelined New Dehli and cited “A highly-placed government source” and obviously for context an Indian one.

Nor is there any support for Ruppert’s claim that the ToI article and possibly the AFP one were based on “an official Indian intelligence report”. Both are still available online and there was no mention of any official reports.

ToI http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...t_id=1454238160

AFPhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/afp101001.html

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

If you respond to them directly, by definition you endorse their bona fides as honorable, well-informed observers.

These people are doing the work of JFK's killers. They are the enemy. To engage them on their terms is to deliver victory to them.

That's all these charlatans want.

Don't do it. I'm beggin' ya.

CD

Charles,

Although my relish for point-by-point rhetorical combat is nearly Pattonesque

("God help me, I love it so!") I will take your good counsel.

Lame excuse for bailing out, you’re using the “good counsel” of a curmudgeon who only a few days ago said the complete opposite? What ever happened to "“Unless those of us dedicated to attaining truth and justice about and for JFK confront these people head-on, they win.” What a joke!

[Charles Drago]

Cliff, et al,

We must confront the conspirators and their accessories head-on.

Without referencing anyone in particular and as a matter of general tactical significance: Calling out all those conspirators and their accessories who would camouflage themselves in the roles of independent thinkers and writers neatly does that job.

Here's the critical distinction: To recognize the validity of those roles is to stand in service to the greater agenda that empowers them. And such recognition, of course, takes place when we engage these scoundrels in the very debate that is their mission to perpetuate.

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

You see, if we don't play, they lose. And you know how kindly disposed their masters are to loosing.

CD

Edited February 21, 2009 by Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

In the context of this thread, the debate ended when the lie repeaters

went from -- "All conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" to

"The simple conspiracy theory can't be proven."

If blowing smoke while back-pedaling were an Olympic event -- Brazil

takes the gold!

[Guest Tom Scully]

[...]

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/tr...y-theories.html

man, where'd you find this right-wing KOOK, Pasadena? ROTFLMFAO!

Ahhhhh !!!! My old "friend", propagandist Edward Feser of "TCS Daily", aka "TechCentralStation", presented at the start of this thread as a serious person, a writer capable of authoring a piece of enough importance to be the foundation of this thread.

THE IRONY IS THAT EDWARD FESER HIMSELF IS A PRINCIPLE IN AN ONGOING DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN CONSPIRACY!

People who think the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11 or in the JFK assassination sometimes complain that those who dismiss them as “conspiracy theorists” are guilty of inconsistency. For don’t the defenders of the “official story” behind 9/11 themselves believe in a conspiracy, namely one masterminded by Osama bin Laden? Don’t they acknowledge the existence of conspiracies like Watergate, as well as everyday garden variety criminal conspiracies?

The objection is superficial. Critics of the best known “conspiracy theories” don’t deny the possibility of conspiracies per se. Rather they deny the possibility, or at least the plausibility, of conspiracies of the scale of those posited by 9/11 and JFK assassination skeptics. One reason for this has to do with considerations about the nature of modern bureaucracies, especially governmental ones. ...

......Anyway, if the question is how, given that (as I argue in the TCS Daily article) conspiracy theories are essentially an artifact of certain key modern, post-Enlightenment attitudes and assumptions, right-wingers could ever accept them, the answer is that here, as elsewhere, conservatives and traditionalists are too often not conservative and traditional enough.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/tr...y-theories.html

Here is Feser as I remember him, (and he even refers to "TCS Daily", near the bottom of his propaganda piece featured in the opening post on this thread):

http://web.archive.org/web/20040211075603/...om/010804A.html

The Mustache on the Left

By Edward Feser Published 01/08/2004

As a Bush re-election later this year looks increasingly likely, some left-wingers worry that Howard Dean is too risky a candidate to put up against a popular President. There is, of course, the obvious comparison to McGovern and the fear that a true believer may inevitably be a sure loser. There is also the worry that Dean may not in fact be so true a believer in the first place: he did support Newt Gingrich's Medicare reforms, after all, and has been a little too cozy with gun rights advocates; might he not betray the Left in order to appeal to Middle America? Is the prospect of another Clinton the price to pay for avoiding another McGovern?

A solution for the Leftist might lie in turning one's historical eye back before either Clinton or McGovern, to find a model who was both genuinely radical and a solid electoral success. Then the task will be to find a modern politician who fits this paradigm as closely as possible. Who might serve as such a model?.....

......One example stands out. Who was he?

He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend "lived together" for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time

...Who was he? He certainly sounds like the ideal presidential candidate of a Pacifica Radio Network listener or Mother Jones subscriber -- or, to make a more timely reference, a contributor to MoveOn.org. It can only add to his appeal for such people that he was a target of American and British bombing raids and had to flee to the safety of an underground hide-out. And he was none other than Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938: Adolf Hitler.

Surprise!

OK, it was a cheap trick; but I trust I didn't get anyone's hopes up too much. That der Fuhrer's biography has as much of a resemblance as it does to that of the typical granola-munching whale-saver is a fact of no small import, however. We'll return to that resemblance presently....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...confessore.html

December 2003

Meet the Press

How James Glassman reinvented journalism--as lobbying.

By Nicholas Confessore

.......As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support the Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industry debates, rather like a corporate lobbyist. Nowhere is this more apparent than on TCS, where Glassman and his colleagues have weighed in on everything from which telecommunications technologies should be the most heavily regulated to whether Microsoft is a threat to other software companies.

But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians,</b> and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also "sponsors" of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.

James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. ......

.......The articles on Tech Central Station address a broad range of issues, some of concern to its sponsors, many not. And most of the site's authors are no doubt merely voicing opinions they have already reached. But time and time again, TCS's coverage of particular issues has had the appearance of a well-aimed P.R. blitz. After ExxonMobil became a sponsor, for instance, the site published a flurry of content attacking both the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gasses and the science of global warming--which happen to be among Exxon-Mobil's chief policy concerns in Washington.

TCS's articles have also complemented work being done by DCI...........

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2612021&page=1

Senators to Exxon: Stop the Denial

By CLAYTON SANDELL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2006 — ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.

In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth."

Phone calls to ExxonMobil were not immediately returned to ABC News.

An upcoming study from the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report said, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.

The senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and the Tech Central Station Web site as beneficiaries of Exxon's efforts to sow doubt within the public about the scientific consensus behind global warming.

"We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy," the letter said.

The letter said ExxonMobil's efforts to confuse haven't worked everywhere.

"It has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community," the senators wrote......

Richard Mellon Scaife's right wing rag objects to the bi-partisan letter from the senators to EXXON:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...e/s_480324.html

Monday, November 20, 2006

A letter about global warming from two U.S. senators to CEO Rex W. Tillerson, chairman the Exxon Mobil Corp., could have a chilling effect on free speech and free thinking.

In their crude attempt to replace rational thought with group-think, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, want ExxonMobil and any other past corporate sponsor of the "denial" campaign to stop funding organizations that don't blame mankind for Earth's latest warming trend and "to foster greater understanding of the necessity of action on a truly global scale before it is too late."

Mr. Rockefeller and Mrs. Snowe clearly hope to monopolize the debate about the possible causes of global warming. Yes, some scientists accuse humans. But other scientists claim warming and cooling simply are characteristics of this planet, man notwithstanding. And there are many more who have other theories or remain undecided.

But will others be heard if Rockefeller and Snowe silence anyone who might not agree with them? Why are they so threatened by any other hypothesis?

Man's mind was not created to be chained. Solutions come from comprehension -- not coercion. Reason does not need bullies to silence the irrational. Truth speaks for itself.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

More on Feser's background as a tool for a corporatist propaganda website:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002217.php

(November 19, 2003 -- 09:51 AM EDT)

For years -- literally years -- I've been writing about Astroturf organizing and that trendsetting operation in the trade, DCI -- home of that Johny Appleseed of the plastic and the green, Tom Synhorst.

Simply put, Astroturf organizers are in <b>the business of creating phony grassroots support, or rather the appearance of grassroots support, for this or that cause.

You got the money and the cause? They'll bring the front groups, the push-polls, the oped payola, you name it.....

.....For years, the trendsetter in Astroturf has been DCI. And a couple days ago, if you were watching really closely, a tiny sentence changed on an http://web.archive.org/web/20031008190838/....com/about.html out-of-the-way page on the TechCentralStation website.

The sentence that read ..

"Tech Central Station is published by Tech Central Station, L.L.C."

now reads ...

"Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C."

It wasn't an accident. It was because this article --

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...confessore.html 'Meet the Press' by Nick Confessore -- was about to be published by The Washington Monthly.

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_felons.html

http://www.city-journal.org/html/cj_editors.html

A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson. .....Copyright The Manhattan Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...Policy_Research

The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501©(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1]

The Manhattan Institute is "focused on promoting free-market principles whose mission is to 'develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.'"[2]

"The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as 'welfare reform' (dismantling social programs), 'faith-based initiatives' (blurring the distinction between church and state), and 'education reform' (destroying public education)," Kurt Nimmo wrote October 10, 2002, in CounterPunch.[3]

Should Felons Vote?

Edward Feser

Forty-eight states currently restrict the right of felons to vote. Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to parolees, and still others disenfranchise felons for life. A movement to overturn these restrictions gained swift momentum during the 2004 presidential campaign, and pending legal and legislative measures promise to keep the issue in the headlines in the months to come. It hasn’t escaped notice that the felon vote would prove a windfall for the Democrats; when they do get to vote, convicts and ex-cons tend to pull the lever for the Left. Had ex-felons been able to vote in Florida in 2000—the state permanently strips all felons of voting rights—Al Gore almost certainly would have won the presidential election.

Murderers, rapists, and thieves might seem to be an odd constituency for a party that prides itself on its touchy-feely concern for women and victims. But desperate times call for desperate measures. After three national electoral defeats in a row, the Democrats need to enlarge their base. If that means reaching out to lock in the pedophile and home-invader vote, so be it. Even newly moderate Democrat Hillary Clinton has recently endorsed voting rights for ex-cons. This is inclusiveness with a vengeance.

The liberal advocates and Democratic politicians seeking the enfranchisement of felons deny any narrow political motivation, of course. Their interest is moral, they claim: it is just wrong to deny felons the vote. Their various arguments in support of this conclusion, though, fail to persuade....

....Those pushing for felon voting will thus need to come up with much better arguments before they can hope to convince their fellow citizens. They ought at least to try. People might otherwise begin to suspect that the hope of gaining political advantage is the only reason they advocate reform.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030805062509/...da/d923085a.htm

State contracts with company founded by man linked to smuggling

Sunday, August 3, 2003

Associated Press

....Asher's first company, DBT Online Inc., bought him out for $147 million in 1999 after the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration suspended its contracts over Asher's past and concerns that the company could potentially monitor targets of investigations. ......

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2002-10-31.../felon-follies/

....Felon Follies

A problem that marred the 2000 ballot is back

By Ted B. Kissell

Published: October 31, 2002

One of the most intriguing mysteries of the whole Election 2000 debacle is this: How many Florida voters improperly lost their voting rights because of a statewide effort to scrub felons from voter rolls? This question was at the heart of a post-election lawsuit filed against the Department of State and others. The lead plaintiff, the NAACP, brought the class-action suit because more than half of those on the scrub list were black.

The good news is, all of those lawsuits are now settled. The private company contracted to perform the purge, Atlanta-based ChoicePoint (which in 2001 merged with the original contractor, West Palm Beach's Database Technologies, or DBT) has agreed to more closely scrutinize the names on the lists it sent out before November 2000 and identify those voters who should never have been removed in the first place. The supervisors of elections who wrongfully removed these voters from the rolls will then reinstate them.

The bad news? This unknown number of nonfelons (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) won't be back on the rolls in time to vote Tuesday. Some of them might already have been reinstated, and those who show up at the polls can cast a provisional ballot. But the original wrong -- the improper removal of their franchise -- has yet to be righted.

The NAACP brought the suit in January 2001 in federal court in Miami, alleging not only that the voter purge lists were flawed but that other violations of the federal Voting Rights Act had occurred in November 2000. The defendants were then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, DBT/ChoicePoint, and the supervisors of elections from seven counties, including Broward and Miami-Dade. Leon County settled first, in April 2002. Then came Broward in May, DBT/ChoicePoint in July, and Duval, Miami-Dade, and Volusia in August. The others settled the first week of September, on the eve of trial.

"The state was holding up the rear," rues Thomasina Williams, a Miami attorney who worked as co-counsel with the coalition of civil rights groups representing the plaintiffs in the NAACP case.

Was the Jeb Bush administration dragging its feet? "I'm reluctant to use the word delay," says attorney Elliott Mincberg of People for the American Way, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs. "Let's just say they litigated the case very aggressively, and there's no question that was a factor that stretched out the process."

Though the job won't be done until spring 2003, a second run through the original purge lists has arrived at a stunning conclusion. On July 29, ChoicePoint filtered its list of 94,282 potential or possible felons through more exacting criteria, including complete Social Security numbers. The number of possible felon matches: a mere 2,563.

This number is shockingly low. Was the list that DBT sent to the state actually 97 percent inaccurate? Probably not: The State of Florida does not routinely ask for Social Security numbers as part of the voter registration process. Still, Mincberg says his clients' expert was prepared to testify at trial that 70,000 of those 94,000 names were inaccurate -- roughly a 74 percent rate of "false positives."

Mincberg is generally pleased with the settlement terms, but he has reservations. "With respect to those who were improperly purged, that's not going to happen [in time for the 2002 election]," he says. He points out that the agreements, like all changes to election procedures in Florida, will have to be "pre-cleared" by the U.S. Justice Department before they are implemented. According to the Florida Attorney General's Office, the part of the settlement agreement that pertains to the felon lists was submitted September 26. As of press time, the Justice Department had not approved the agreements.

Florida is one of eight states that denies people convicted of felonies the right to vote and is the only state to include this denial in its constitution. This prohibition has had a clearly discriminatory effect: 27 percent of black men in Florida cannot vote.

A felon can ask the state to restore his or her voting rights. Not so long ago, the clemency process was almost automatic. In 1986, under Democratic Gov. Bob Graham, some 15,000 felons had their voting rights reinstated. In 2000, the last year for which figures are available, that number was 927. According to the Florida Parole Commission, there is a current backlog of some 26,500 applications for restoration....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2

...The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the ''Left Behind'' novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation.....

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/ridingtalk/2005/11/289.html

CBC - Canada Votes 2006 - Riding Talk

... Leader Stephen Harper delivered a speech in Montreal to a secret ultra-right-wing

American think tank, the Council for National Policy (CNP), in which he ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=w...G=Google+Search

YouTube - Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote ...

Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co ...

Watch video - 40 sec -

Paul Weyrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPaul Weyrich Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999 [5] .... "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

LoneStarBear: Paul Weyrich: Goo-Goo SyndromeWeyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. ...

http://lonestarbear.blogspot.com/2007/06/p...o-syndrome.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

[Len Colby]

It’s rainy again so I taking shelter at home.

In the context of this thread, the debate ended when the lie repeaters

went from -- "All conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" to

"The simple conspiracy theory can't be proven."

You have an unparalleled ability to create strawmen.

1) No one on this thread not even Feser said anything along the lines of "All conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" he even specifically accepted the possibility of less ornate plots:

“Critics of the best known “conspiracy theories” don’t deny the possibility of conspiracies per se. Rather they deny the possibility, or at least the plausibility, of conspiracies of the scale of those posited by 9/11 and JFK assassination skeptics

I said:

Feser's point however applies to 9/11 better than the assassination because the former if it what the "truthers" advocate were true would have required an unrealistic degree of secret cooperation between numerous people in diverse agencies and the private sector

2) I never retreated from this position. You however went from “it did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed,” to [roughly] ‘it took a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed BUT they were compartmentalized’

It was you as well who refused to spell out a reasonable scenario involving only a small number of conspirators of what they think happened that day.

For the record I still support Feser’s position with respect to 9/11 i.e. I believe “inside job” theories are implausible due their level of complexity and the number of people who would have to be involved

To sum thing up for those slow on the pick up I only applied this argument to 9/11 and never backed away that position – you on the other hand retreated from you initial pronouncement concerning the number of conspirators.

3) It is true however that you have been unable to prove the various allegations you have made such as those concerning air defenses and Gen. Ahmad’s involvement in financing of the attacks.

If blowing smoke while back-pedaling were an Olympic event -- Brazil

takes the gold!

I remember when I was in high school I read a book about Assyrian archeology. The author mentioned finding monuments proclaiming that the king had vanquished another king’s army at the particular location on a particular date, the problem was the closer they were to the capital the later the dates of the battles against the same enemy i.e. the “victories” were really part of a retreat. Your 'victory' declaration rings as false as the inscriptions on those ancient monuments.

When you feel up to defending your theories with facts rather than sarcasm don’t be shy.

[Charles Drago]

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

[Cliff Varnell]

In the context of this thread, the debate ended when the lie repeaters

went from -- "All 9/11 conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" to

"The simple 9/11 conspiracy theory can't be proven."

If blowing smoke while back-pedaling were an Olympic event -- Brazil

takes the gold!

Fixed.

Somebody doesn't seem to realize you can only win one medal per

event...

[Cliff Varnell]

Class, today we're going to look at a particular word that has come up a lot

lately.

The word is "theory"...

the⋅o⋅ry

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to

well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual

fact.

For the slower kids in the class, we'll also look at the word "conjectural"...

con⋅jec⋅tur⋅al

[kuhn-jek-cher-uhl]

–adjective

1. of, of the nature of, or involving conjecture; problematical: Theories

about the extinction of dinosaurs are highly conjectural.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Indeed you did, sir!

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that

has accompanied said accusations.

Pardon me, I must fetch my vapors...

Edited February 21, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Indeed you did, sir!

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that

has accompanied said accusations.

Pardon me, I must fetch my vapors...

Except that I never said such things explicitly or implicitly just as I never backed away from my position that 9/11 “inside job” theories are too complex to be plausible. Since you are incapable of getting your facts straight about something as straight forward as what another poster did or didn’t say on a forum thread it’s no wonder you get confused about something as complex as 9/11.

If you want to back out of yet another 9/11 thread*, don’t illude yourself into thinking that many will fail to notice you left behind a collection of unsubstantiated claims.

* This will be the third time you’ve done so; comparisons with Gen. McClellan are more apt than Patton.

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Indeed you did, sir!

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that

has accompanied said accusations.

Pardon me, I must fetch my vapors...

Except that I never said such things explicitly or implicitly just as I never backed away from my position that 9/11 “inside job” theories are too complex to be plausible.

You do not appear to grasp what the word "theory" means.

Since you are incapable of getting your facts straight about something as straight forward as what another poster did or didn’t say on a forum thread

I clearly never accused the scrambled pilots of complicity.

You claim I did.

Your hypocrisy here is stunning.

it’s no wonder you get confused about something as complex as 9/11.

If you want to back out of yet another 9/11 thread*, don’t illude yourself into thinking that many will fail to notice you left behind a collection of unsubstantiated claims.

I leave the gentle reader to check out the links posted and draw their own

conclusions as to the logical basis of a Cheney/Ahmed conspiracy theory.

* This will be the third time you’ve done so; comparisons with Gen. McClellan are more apt than Patton.

Charles Drago -- right again!

Just because you keep blowing smoke, Colby, doesn't mean you've made

a point.

You will keep blowing smoke on this thread, so by all means, have the last

word...

Edited February 22, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that has accompanied said accusations [of spinelessness and ignorance].

Except that I never said such things explicitly or implicitly just as I never backed away from my position that 9/11 “inside job” theories are too complex to be plausible.

You do not appear to grasp what the word "theory" means.

No I’m well aware of its meaning both in scientific and other contexts but it is irrelevant to my comment or the fact that you claimed incorrectly that I back away from my position and accused you of “spinelessness and ignorance”

Since you are incapable of getting your facts straight about something as straight forward as what another poster did or didn’t say on a forum thread

I clearly never accused the scrambled pilots of complicity.

You claim I did.

Your hypocrisy here is stunning.

Truthers commonly insinuate/imply/suggest things without saying them outright then cry foul when called on them (or misinterpreted). So what exactly were you driving at when you wrote, “this "confusion" extended to the pilots of the jets that were eventually scrambled, who flew at far under top speed, without any apparent urgency”?

If you want to back out of yet another 9/11 thread*, don’t illude yourself into thinking that many will fail to notice you left behind a collection of unsubstantiated claims.

I leave the gentle reader to check out the links posted and draw their own

conclusions as to the logical basis of a Cheney/Ahmed conspiracy theory.

I couldn’t agree more so far none of your links

1) cited sources other than anonymous Indian government officials that Ahmed order the money transfer OR

2) provided evidence Cheney ordered the various military exercises that day. OR

3) That they adversely affected response times

* This will be the third time you’ve done so; comparisons with Gen. McClellan are more apt than Patton.

Charles Drago -- right again!

You invited such a comment by self-servingly comparing your self to Patton. You of course are above accusing other members of this forum of character flaws.

[Charles Drago]

I've said it before, but I simply don't understand why anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously or respects his ridiculous opinions. He is about the only person I've ever met whose theory is more absurd than the official one.

I agree but he is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

Gotta tell ya, John, that dry British sense of humor has found a home in you.

[Charles Drago]

Cliff, et al,

Without referencing anyone in particular and as a matter of general tactical significance:

When the Bunker Street Irregulars cannot lure honorable men and women into their rhetorical traps, and not even absurd name-calling works, they'll simply write to each other -- and, as is the case with at least one such entity on this forum -- he or she will talk to himself or herself ad absurdum.

Of course they also swear, with right hands held high, that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Reminds me of the iconic photo of the tobacco industry bigwigs standing shoulder-to-shoulder before a committee of Congress, all of them in just that posture.

Duly sworn, they testified that they "believe" that nicotine is not addictive.

And they have the "scientists" to prove it.

Nicotine? Addictive? Could you cite the proof? The references?

Where do we find such men?

(The question is not rhetorical in nature; I and others happen to know.)

CD