FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Sadly, I put little faith in Government 'investigations' of itself. We've seen loads of them and many of us have all the paperwork......and it is just that...paper...with nothing much about the truth. I was just thinking, in the age of Photoshop et al. there is ZERO need to have a live fly-by photo opportunity. They have zillions of photos of the plane and whatever backdrop they said they wanted [statue of Liberty, Lower Manhattan, Ground Zero] etc. No one would know the difference and it wouldn't be a deception. Such photo graphic work is the norm now. Again, more smelly fish and I'll be it gets thrown away before it is dissected to know where it came from and why!

Why do "truthers" always omit the over 100 people who SAW the airliner hit the Pentagon?

[Len Colby]

I note that obstructionists continue to misrepresent (lie?) about my position on the WTC. I note

that I have been classified as a NO-PLANER, whatever that is.

That is not my position at all. My position is that the two IDENTIFIED "HIJACKED" PLANES did

not strike the twin towers. Does that make me a no-planer?

SOMETHING did strike the twin towers. I do not know what it was. I suspect from study of all

the evidence that whatever it was came from ultra secret weaponry and scenarios provided

at the highest level. Does NOT KNOWING what struck the towers make me a no-planer?

Jack

"No planers" believe that the 9/11 crashes involved missiles, drones, holograms, small planes or something other than Boeing jetliners. The term especially applies to people who believe this in regards to the WTC crashes. Part of this "theory" is that TV images of the planes/crashed were faked and the recovered parts planted. You have repeatedly promoted such nonsense on your website and here, including in your posts on this thread. Being disingenuous doesn't become you.

Such theories are justifiably ridiculed even within the "'truth' movement" and are even banned on its 2 biggest forums, 911Blogger and the Loose Change Forum. Supposedly even Alex Jones called "no planers" "disinfo agents"

"Does NOT KNOWING what struck the towers make me a no-planer?"

Yes

[Ron Ecker]

It always irks me when the folks in DC say there's going to be an investigation of a mistake to be sure that "it will never happen again." So now we can rest assured that Air Force One will never again fly at 1000 feet over NYC? What a relief! Blessed assurance!

An investigation should not be to assure that something will never happen again (how could it?), but to find out who should be canned as incompetent and stupid.

[Evan Burton]

but to find out who should be canned as incompetent and stupid.

Completely agree, Ron, completely agree.

[Terry Mauro]

http://larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10201

[Len Colby]

I was only able to make it through the first few minutes LaRouche typically long windedly rambles on of course he figures he favorite culprits "the British" and drones on about Prince Bandihar etc etc, no evidence is cited of course. The best part starts 35 second in when the truther asked him the question we get to see the audience. Speaking at 12,000 student campus in a 1.2 million person metropolitain area the cult leader drew 3 - 4 dozen people.

[Terry Mauro]

What does this have to do with the truthfulness of his analysis? Millions of adult Americans watch cartoons on the Fox network (Family Guy) each week. If Americans knew what was good for them then we wouldnt be in the mess we are in right now.

[Len Colby]

He didn't offer any analysis only rambling rampant speculation devoid of any backing evidence. The significance of the low turn out is that even on a college campus interest in what your messiah has to say is extremely limited.

The vast majority of the audience members were well passed student age, I doubt many were profs. College and grad students tend to be curious by nature. This even applies to people they don't like. There are videos on YouTube* of when Kevin Barrett got kicked out for heckling at a David Horowitz lecture at UW. Most of the people there were anti-Horowitz but they filled a large room. I went to Oberlin College which had less than a quarter the student body of CCSU and anybody reasonably well know came speak dozens of students would show up, but an infamous guy who ran for president several times an only 10 - 20 showed up.

*

, He seems to have been well loved by the student body LOL

[Terry Mauro]

I would suggest you watch the first five minutes, introducing LaRouche. The moderator describes the negative attacks leading up to LaRouche's appearance. This included the distribution of material which was against the stated wishes of the lecture series creator and moderator.

The moderator describes the material distributed about LaRouche as either "problematic factually at best, or clearly inaccurate".

And if you watch you'll see professors/instructors are present for the presentation.

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=10199

Edited May 14, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

I would suggest you watch the first five minutes, introducing LaRouche. The moderator describes the negative attacks leading up to LaRouche's appearance. This included the distribution of material which was against the stated wishes of the lecture series creator and moderator.

Funny that when it comes LaRouche speaking the professor is all for free speech especially because it's a university but he objects to others exercising the very same right. He sets up a lecture series and invites controversial speakers but doesn't want people who don't like the speakers peacefully handing out pamphlets. Like many backers of fringe groups he only believes in the free right to expression for people he agrees with.

Ironic that LaRouche supporters (like him and apperently you) would object to people peacefully pamphleting:

One Campus, Two Personality Cults--Big Problem?

October 31, 2006 01:35 PM ET | Permanent Link

Members of the LaRouche Youth Movement interrupted a speech hosted by the University of Southern California's Objectivist Club Friday. The LaRouche

protesters threw condoms and meat at the speaker

, who was giving a lecture called "Global Capitalism: the Solution to World Poverty and Oppression." The condoms were decorated with pictures of the faces of political leaders. The meat was raw. One witness told the Daily Trojan: "I believe he said, 'On behalf of the LaRouche campaign, we dedicate this raw meat to you for supporting a philosophy that results in the death of millions of children." Local police called the protest peaceful.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2006/10/index.html

Eleven arrests were made for disturbing the peace and four for resisting arrest when a radical liberal group with a flair for theatricality disrupted a controversial speech by the president of the Ayn Rand Institute, last Monday Night.

The speaker was Yaron Brook, brought to campus by the Ayn Rand Club. The protestors were members of the LaRouche Youth Movement.

[...]

Brook continued relatively un-heckled, receiving only a smattering of laughter at his speech impediment, which protestors likened to that of Elmer Fudd. But all of a sudden, protestors throughout the audience stood up and started singing, delivering lyrics like '300,00 Muslims died. / Sounds like Nazi genocide' in an a cappella choir style. UCI police began escorting the vocalists outside, where authorities arrested LaRouche protestors.

http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article?...rested_at_ayn17

Lieberman likes to frame his political career as one of convictions and character. Last night voters in Connecticut saw those convictions in action.

The LaRouche protesters attempts to silence the debate were vile.

Lamont and Schlesinger’s first instinct was to stand up for civil discourse. Joe Lieberman was only interested in scoring political hits against his opponents, both of whom had just stood up for him and his right to be heard.

http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net/archive/?C=...DD&paged=38

"There were even LaRouche protesters at one of the televised Democratic Candidates Debate, disrupting things and demanding to know: "Where is LaRouche?""

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/15/13552/626

The moderator describes the material distributed prior to LaRouche's appearance as "problematic factually at best, to out right lies".

The guy is an obvious groupie his assessment of the pamphlets isn't objective. In any case some people handing out anti-LaRouche pamphlets can't explain why only 20 - 30 students (at best) out of a 12,000+ student body went to see him speak if more than let's say 0.2% of them pro or con gave a damn about what he had to say. His speech was part of a larger lecture series and was promoted by a well know professor there.

It also doesn't explain why he or and/or his flunkies told a flat out lie about attendance at the event:

May 5, 2009 (EIRNS)—Lyndon LaRouche spoke to a

capacity

crowd of 150-175 people

at Central Connecticut State University yesterday at an event hosted by Prof. Norton Mezvinsky. The audience included many faculty members, a former president of the university, students, members of the LaRouche Youth Movement from New England, and LaRouche movement supporters from the area.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090505lar_con_u.html

and repeated the lie in various languages:

"11 maj 2009 ... Lyndon LaRouche talade den 4 maj inför 150-170 åhörare på Central Connecticut State University. LaRouches tal, med titeln "Slutet på..."

http://www.LaRouche.se/nyheter/2009/05/11/...rn-lyft-blicken

"Lyndon LaRouche sprach am Montag vor 150-170 Zuhörern an der Central Connecticut State University im Rahmen einer Vorlesungsreihe zum Nahen Osten"

http://www.bueso.de/news/lyndon-LaRouche-s...r-nahostpolitik

Now if some the people there were "members of the LaRouche Youth Movement from New England, and LaRouche movement supporters from the area." I probably over estimated the number of students there perhaps less than 1 in 1000 could have been bothered to attend.

[Terry Mauro]

I used that clip to point out that there was a effort launched against LaRouche in order to keep people/students from attending his presentation.

[Len Colby]

Note that not even the LaRouche groupie professor said the people were being disruptive. Do you really think you can explain away the abysmally low turn out because some people were peacefully handing out anti-LaRouche literature?

Odd that you failed to address the outright lie about turnout on various LaRouche sites, note there was no mention of disruptive protestors in their accounts

[Terry Mauro]

That's certainly the understanding I came away with. Of course I've witnessed these tactics many many times before. It is always the same, attack LaRouche in an effort to contain him and his ideas.

Why do you think the Professor made special mention of the anti LaRouche pamphlets being distributed on campus?

The rest of your characterization is meaningless to me. Why identify this professor as a "groupie"? What is the significance of characterizing him this way? How does it effect the truthfulness of LaRouche's comments about 911? The Professor said many things that fly in the face of your false argument.

Deleted (offensive comment)

Edited May 15, 2009 by John Simkin

[Len Colby]

That's certainly the understanding I came away with. Of course I've witnessed these tactics many many times before. It is always the same, attack LaRouche in an effort to contain him and his ideas.

Why do you think the Professor made special mention of the anti LaRouche pamphlets being distributed on campus?

Because despite his pose as a champion of free speech he only supports it for those whose views he supports, he is intolerant of dissent and is upset that anyone would peacefully object to his hero. If they had been acting in an intimidating manner why didn't he or the Larouchite press say so? Why did the later lie about attendance in at least three languages?

The rest of your characterization is meaningless to me. Why identify this professor as a "groupie"? What is the significance of characterizing him this way? How does it effect the truthfulness of LaRouche's comments about 911?

It doesn't and I never indicated it did, it does however call into question his ability to objectivelly judge the material

The Professor said many things that fly in the face of your false argument.

Are you referring to the unabashed praise he heaped on your guru? It sounds like he thinks the guy should be given the Nobel Peace and Economics prizes and the Pulitzer for history. What did he say "that [flew] in the face of [my] argument"?

Deleted (offensive comment)

I was tempted to sink to your level in my reply but realized I'd debase myself (and the forum) if I did.

[Terry Mauro]

You have perfect timing.

Do you have any idea why a portion of my earlier response was deleted?

What was my offense? I simply offered up my insight as to how you came to be a dedicated sophist. I suggested that it was long standing family tradition. In fact I think I can prove it beyond a doubt.

Maybe John can respond to the question?

Edited May 15, 2009 by Terry Mauro