Wednesday, May 24, 2006

The Real Conspiracy

Proud Kaffir over at Red State has done some digging and he's found the real culprit behind 9-11:

1. A coalition of leftists/socialist/communist groups (L.S.C.) lead by International A.N.S.W.E.R. Just look at the sites selected for the attacks: Walls Street and the Pentagon, respectively, the center of the exploitive capitalist world and the center of operations for the military that protects these horrible capitalists. To the L.S.C., these places are the center of all evil in the world. Ward Churchill was not the only liberal who thought these people deserved to die, so did the liberal perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Who was the New Mexico professor who said that anybody who bombed the WTC and the Pentagon got his vote?

He's also amused at how one of our CT commenters (take a bow, NESNYC) believed his Clinton conspiracy theory, which of course was just a gag.

All, I can say, PK, is just bring up the Zionists if you really want to see some interesting comments.

19 Comments:

At 24 May, 2006 20:56, Blogger shawn said...

My problem with his post is his calls ANSWER "liberal", they are anything but.

Liberals believe in a free-market economy and a small government (I know, weird, how "liberals" today don't believe in either of those). ANSWER obviously wants big government and planned economy.

 
At 24 May, 2006 20:56, Blogger shawn said...

he calls*

 
At 24 May, 2006 22:05, Blogger Alex said...

ANSWER are the original red commies. They just try to present a Liberal (the western version) facade in order to garner more mainstream support. Anyone who's ever sneaked into one of their meetings knows what they're really like though.

The only problem I have with the Clinton Conspiracy Theory (CCT) is that it actualy adapts a single premise, has a semi-logical flow, actually offers explanations and answers which fit the original premise, and finaly, actually draws a conclusion. This is nothing like most 9/11 conspiracy theories. The simple fact that he actualy reaches a conclusion is enough to set him apart from most 9/11 CTers. Other than that, it's a great parody :)

 
At 24 May, 2006 22:46, Blogger BG said...

My first reaction to Proud K when he commented here was that he was a disagreeable not-that-intelligent fellow.

After reading this post and his blog's post that it is based on, he's managed to elevate his status to f-tarded offensive a-hole. My first thought was trying to imagine what the appropriate redress would be when some sanity prevails and the Country comes to its senses.

As of now, I'll sleep soundly knowing that stupidity and cluelessness like this provides it own punishment.

 
At 24 May, 2006 23:13, Blogger nesNYC said...

My problem with his post is his calls ANSWER "liberal", they are anything but.

That's not his only problem. Is this guy some kind of comedian? He definitely has no humor or analytical skills. Seem more like satire to me. Oh well, he won't be singing the same tune a year from now.

 
At 25 May, 2006 00:39, Blogger Alex said...

"After reading this post and his blog's post that it is based on, he's managed to elevate his status to f-tarded offensive a-hole."

Really? What exactly about his blog made you feel that way? Personaly I think anyone who claims that the US government killed 3,000 of it's own citizens just so they could go kill a few thousand muslims is a f-tarded offensive a-hole, but your mileage may vary.

"That's not his only problem. Is this guy some kind of comedian? He definitely has no humor or analytical skills. Seem more like satire to me."

Stop being a sore loser N-Sync.

 
At 25 May, 2006 03:32, Blogger shawn said...

He definitely has no humor or analytical skills

Pot, meet kettle.

 
At 25 May, 2006 03:33, Blogger shawn said...

Anyone who's ever sneaked into one of their meetings knows what they're really like though.

Oh I've gone to their protests before. At the gulags and the Great Leap Forward, it's scary people can still latch onto that ideology so whole-heartedly.

 
At 25 May, 2006 07:09, Blogger Rousseau said...

Shawn, I posted my comments in several areas because I think it is germane to all of the debates. Interesting that you had to note who you thought I was sympathetic to and dismiss me rather than address my arguments. I think I was fairly clear that the conspiracy theorists are stuck in a conceptual vacuum, as we all are. Maybe start with addressing this logical dilema.

1. The movie and its directors are crazed conspriacy theorists who spew nonsense.

2. Thus, people are either, sensisble and understand this, therefore do not need extra info contained in this site, or they are crazy like the film makers and are beyond help as they will be attached to any small shred of inconclusive evidence.

how does it follow then?

3. Therefore we need to spend a huge amount of intellectual effort to construct an extensive project to debunk what is clearly crazy and illogical to all reasonable people????

All of the talk of logic on this site should compell you to at least consider this inconsistency. My challenge is to engage in a discussion outside of the petty bickering that permeates the argument from both sides.

 
At 25 May, 2006 07:19, Blogger undense said...

rousseau,

Your "logical dilemma" ignores some pertinent facts. The crazed conspiracy theorists don't think they are crazy. Nor are we arguing or trying to convince the sensible, reasonable people. We are trying to demonstrate to the crazies that they actually ARE crazy.

 
At 25 May, 2006 07:30, Blogger Pat said...

Rousseau, certainly the first time I watched Loose Change, I was flabbergasted that anybody could be convinced by such a shoddy effort. But it's slickly packaged, and takes advantage of people's willingness to be told something rather than to learn it for themselves. It is convincing people, if not of its conspiracy, at least of the need for another investigation.

 
At 25 May, 2006 11:24, Blogger Rousseau said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 May, 2006 11:28, Blogger Rousseau said...

Fair points indeed. So is the real issue that their particular version of events is highly suspect? or Is the issue that any notion that the government (or individuals within it) would engage in behavior that may benefit "a given few" at the expense of the many (a classic liibertarian concern). To me it is two entirley different things to say 1. I know for sure that 9/11 was a broad conspiracy, and that in "reality" the buildings were demolished by some shaowy inside job instead. and 2. I have a general Shakespherian mistrust of those who hold the levers of political power and would not be surprised if they conveyed a false account or intirpretation (for a multitude of potantial self serving reasons). For instance I am fairly convinced that Bill Clinton ordered the airstrikes on Sudan and Afghanistan to distract attention from his own sorid affairs. That's not a shadowy conspiracy if one uses common logic to deduce that he launched the strikes the day after certifiable proof of his conduct had become public. Does anyone doubt that Bill Clinton would make a such a calculation to if he thought it could save his own ass? The historical record is now pretty clear that the Spanish-American and Mexican-American were fabricated on false pretenses, check Ulssys S. Grants comments on the war with Mexico. The Gulf of Tonkin was also clearly a nonevent that somehow was used as a pretext for escalating our invovlment in Vietnam, check the work of historians and scholars in mainstream peer-reviewed academic journals on this. Saying the offical line is inadaquate, is a far cry from having a detailed counter story. Grouping both together makes for biting rhetoric, but incomplete
analysis.

 
At 25 May, 2006 11:40, Blogger Jujigatami said...

There's so much more to it than any blog can tackle.

Sure, some(most) CTers are crazy, the problem is with those people that aren't crazy. ^The people that don't want to face reality and understand that there are people in the world that hate us, not for what we do, but for who we are.

They simply cannot comprehend that there is actually a group of fanatics that would indiscriminately kill thousands of people, just and totally out of hatred.

Face it, if Bush had responded to 9/11 by lobbing a few cruise missiles into afghanistan and leaving Iraq alone, almost none of these nutbars would be saying boo, and the ones that did would be ridiculed by even the really crazies that are buying in to it today.

But no, Bush took a strong stance and a very strong response to terror supporting regimes. Agree or disagree with the tactic, that is what he did. They can't believe that anyone, in this day and age would actually use force. It seems to be against the Prime Directive... Starfleet would never respond this way. It just doesn't compute.

They can't understand this. It actually causes their brains to overload. They think "There must be some other reason!!" He had to want to do this all along. It must have been a plan all along, It must be a conspiracy, the Illuminati, PNAC, Trilateral Commission. Surely ANYONE BUT SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY HATES US!!!

They'll grasp at anything that confirms their warped view. They'll perform mental contorsions and ignore any facts that they disagree with.

They are doing this to feel secure. They simply can't handle the uncertainty of a group that hates us. It must be a big government plot therefore. The government did it to achieve its goals of whatever (oil, imperialism, deporting Michael Jackson, etc.).

Now that they've achieved their goal, we're safe.

And when there is another attack, they'll claim that's the governments work too because they need to expand their goals (more oil, Iran, Getting Michael Jackson back, whatever).

The CTers spout this drivel not out of "truth" but out of fear. Not fear of our government, but fear that if it isn't the government thats behind it, they will have no feeling of security ever. If they didn't believe this, they'd be paralyzed with fear.

 
At 25 May, 2006 12:03, Blogger Rousseau said...

"They simply cannot comprehend that there is actually a group of fanatics that would indiscriminately kill thousands of people, just and totally out of hatred."

I agree, but why are you so sure that these same type of fanatics could not also have power and influence in this country. Does a piece of paper (the Constitution) make us immune to power hungry crazed leaders who would do dishonest things? Food for thought, other people who were called crazy because they simply could not except the true nature of "things":
Galeleo
Einstein
Plank
Columbus
Darwin
Doctors who believed in modern medicine

This is not to lend credence to the claims of the film makers, rather to call into to question your claim to know who is carzy, and what is logical. By what auhtority to you pass this sever judgment upon others, what allows you to know the clear facts while others are blinded. Hmmm, it seems that your self-ordained proopensity to clearly distinguish those who are crazy from those who are not may serve your own ego? Sure, would everyone like to believe that they are on a mission to save the confused who may be miguided by falsehoods, seems pretty similarly to the mission of the filmakers. Oh, but I forgot, you are the one who "really knows".

 
At 25 May, 2006 12:40, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Well, lets see.

Aside from the fact that I was there, and saw the planes hit the WTC, and saw the damage they did, there's this:

We have a system of government that is by the people and for the people. A system of checks and balances on governmental powers exists both between the branches of government, and between the people and their elected leaders. For a conspiracy the ikes of Loose Change to actually happen, it would mean that literally thousands of elected officials, government employees, and military officials would have to ALL be in collusion to go against the very constitution they are sworn to protect.

Thousands.

This from a government where a President couldn't even keep a blowjob he had in private a secret. But no, when it comes to killing thousands of innocent countrymen, well then, its all hush hush.

Seriously, with the amount of transparency that we actually have in the government, and the different parties constantly vying for power, don't you think that some elected official somewhere would LOVE to be the one that exposes the "Truth"? Does that make me too trusting in our government? I don't think so, because I personally know my senators and my congressmen. I went to highschool with one of my senators sons. I know these people, and know that if there were even a hint, the slightest hint of impropriety, they would be all over it.

Oh and I also don't like my senators and congressmen's political views or party. I would never vote for any of them, and I never have. But I still know that they are honorable servants to the people. They are not people that would participate in any conspiracy, and they would LOVE to be able to expose one.

Then there are the studies that have been done and the reports that have come out. Reports featuring SOLID EVIDENCE that REFUTES EVERYTHING the CTers postulate. EVERYTHING.

Then there is actually the fact the the CTers don't have one, not one solid piece of evidence ANYWHERE that supports their hypothesis. Not one, not anywhere. In fact, they dismiss any actual solid evidence as part of the conspiracy. Not only that, they claim that actual solid evidence (like airplane parts, eyewitnesses, phone calls, structural engineers, etc) is all fraudulent and yet more parts of the conspiracy.

Who am I to pass this severe judgment upon others, what allows me to know the clear facts while others are blinded? Its actually quite simple. I analyse the facts in a unbiased and critical process. I then reach a conclusion based on evidence, not supposition.

Let me put it this way, if the CTers had one single solid piece of uncontrevertable evidence, I'd be willing to listen to their blather. But they don't. In fact, when pushed for anything solid, all they say is they are "just askng questions" or "pointing out inconsistencies". Well, you know what? Life is full of inconsistencies.

Their arguements are ALL, ALL based on logical fallacy, supposition, and half truths, while the official story is based on historical fact and physical evidence.

Gallileo et.al. were thought as crazies at first, but then they supported their radical "crazy" ideas with solid facts based on repeatable expirements.

Please, PLEASE let any of the CTers support even just one aspect of their loony theory with a fact or peice of solid evidence instead of supposition and fallacy.

So far everything I've seen has been easily shown to be flawed on its arguments, let alone the lack of facts or supporting evidence.

So who am I?? I am an eyewitness to the events, a former highschool and college debater, an MBA, and someone that understands that the United States of America is a place that isn't run by a shadowy group of elders, but run by the people and for the people.

 
At 25 May, 2006 13:28, Blogger shawn said...

Rousseau, not everyone who watches Loose Change and buys into it is crazy. Most of it stems from ignorance. Ignorance of basic physics, ignorance of how WTC was constructed, ignorance of geopolitics, ignorance of logical fallacies, and everyone's inherent skepticism of government. It's far easier to blame the government than a group of fanatics who you have no recouse against except going and finding them and putting bullets in their twisted brains.

As long as you present something in a slick package, and make it seem like you know what you're talking about, you're set. I've really wanted to turn the Viewer's Guide into a video and throw it on Google, but I haven't the time (nor the programs) to do it.

 
At 25 May, 2006 18:20, Blogger Rousseau said...

Cool, good points. Have you ever heard of the Pentagon Papers that exposed a continuous high level systematic cover-up of the facts on the ground in Vietnam. Read them (the original documents, not analysis). Seems that the old checks and balances didn't prevent this. How about the Tuskeegee expiriments, check the offical documents on that. How about looking at the documented case of the government purposly exposing N.M. residents to nuclear radiation and telling them not to worry there was no danger. Those people can tell you the cost of taking the gov't word and believing it would never purposly harm its citizens. All of these cases can be examined and supported by the de-classified gov't docs. No independent analysis is required, checj it out for yourself.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:14, Blogger shawn said...

How about looking at the documented case of the government purposly exposing N.M. residents to nuclear radiation and telling them not to worry there was no danger.

They also used nuke artillery, and after the bomb went off, would have soldiers come out of their trenches and move towards the mushroom cloud. They also fed radioactive mush to retarded children to see what would happen.

Don't mistake me for some rah-rah siss-boom-bah government loving jingo. I know the horrible things our government had done in the past. In those cases there was actual evidence to support the claims (and not to mention they're not anywhere close to the scale or impact of 9/11).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home