LA Story
Here's a post from a Truther that goes through the entire LA confab organized by Alex Jones last weekend. First, get the diligence:
The conference was 12 hours each day, Saturday and Sunday. There was only time for one 15 minute break each day because the amount of information was so vast.
Vast? Or half-vast:
WTC Building 7:
1. Why did Building 7 go down completely on top of itself?
2. Why did it fall so fast?
3. Why was there a call to research only the 8-46 floors? Why aren't they researching all the floors?
4. Why did the owner of Building 7 call for it to be taken down at all? A plane never hit it.
Good summary of the conference from the Truther standpoint. I had to smile at this closing comment, though:
3. I felt completely normal. I was around people who think the same way that I think. It felt so nice.
posted by Pat @ 7:36 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Pat,
I respect that you think "truthers" are looney.
I respect that if you aren't allowed to make fun of people on your own blog, then where can you?
I have to ask you (since you don't seem to have a whit of doubt about the official story):
When conceivable reason would the govt. have for not releasing video at the Pentagon?
The truthers are simply making up their theories in order to compensate for their own intellectual inadequacies. It's an ellabprate attempt for social and intellectual misfits to fit in to a like minded group and to finally (for once in their lives) feel smart, confident, accepted, and superior.
Either that, or they're just Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
Behold:
The wisdom of jujigatami!
Guide to July Events for "social and intellectual misfits":
6-9 July 2006
"9/11: What happened and why and what can be done about it?"
Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett
The Midwest Social Forum 2006
Milwaukee, WI
608.262.1420
For more information, link
22 July 2006
Films and Lecture: Loose Change, 2nd Edition, and
September 11 Revisited; lecture by Morgan Reynolds
7:30 PM/CT, Lakewood Theatre, Dallas, TX
For more information, link
Oh, now you are all of a sudden going to start defending the sanity of Jim Fetzer?
When conceivable reason would the govt. have for not releasing video at the Pentagon?
Well, one was released, but no one liked that one. Ironically released thanks to the FOIA request made by a right wing group. Truthers seem to spend more time on message boards and blogs then actually seeking out evidence.
The reason they didn't release it earlier was because it was evidence in a trial.
Now, with regards to other footage, which footage are we talking about here? The security camera from the gas station? If the government does have the right to release it (do they?), why don't you fill out a FOIA form and request it?
What other video exists? I'm just curious about what other video exists that isn't along the lines of the earlier one released. As in, is not only a couple of frames per whatever, but is continuous.
Guide to July Events for "social and intellectual misfits":
And if I were in the truth movement, I would be raging against this. These are the people that are being held up as "experts" on your side. And they are clearly off their rocker.
Even if you don't believe so, you can see how anyone else could.
Problem is, I guess, that you don't have much else for "experts" to replace them with.
Abby, the latest tally of "videos that show the Pentagon strike" is up to around 80 I believe.
The hotel, gas station, highway cam.... Many many other.
And I'm sure the nutters are at least in the ballpark regarding the number of cameras in the area. However, why ANY of them (besides the one that was actually AT the Pentagon) would be focused ON the Pentagon is beyond me.
What hotel security camera is doing its job if it's trained on another building a mile or so away?
"Abby, the latest tally of "videos that show the Pentagon strike" is up to around 80 I believe.
(snip)
However, why ANY of them (besides the one that was actually AT the Pentagon) would be focused ON the Pentagon is beyond me."
Heh. Here's something of an irony. If the government were anywhere near as evil as the CTers posit, the head CTers would have firsthand knowledge of just how overbroad an FBI evidence search can be, and would therefore understand that only a tiny portion of any videos siezed would turn out to be relevant.
The security camera from the gas station? If the government does have the right to release it (do they?)
While IANAL, the answer to that question is 'no'. Property can be seized as evidence, and held from its owner as long as no court orders them to return it. But the goverment cannot just arbitrarily release something that is someone elses property.
Sometimes snippets can be released with the agreement of the owners, this is usually done for public release to help in catching a criminal on the loose.
Its the same with many other things as well: Black boxes are the property of the airliners. They can be seized for federal crash investigations, but they belong to the airliners.
That's what I thought.
Well, there's your answer bg.
Guide to July Events for "social and intellectual misfits":
Thats good BG, they say acceptance is the first step along the road to recovery.
Good luck in your journey to sanity!
Oh, now you are all of a sudden going to start defending the sanity of Jim Fetzer?
James,
BG doesn't have any problem with Fetzers sanity or his assertions.
He has a problem with his tone.
Like I said before... Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!
Abby Scott,
with respect to the Pentagon, and your comments, I appreciate your civil tone.
As you might imagine, we are still miles apart on what's reasonable about the official data about the Pentagon "crash" and why some of it was not released,etc. However, perhaps my remarks of distrust and disinterest in having you engaged in this discussion were unwarranted.
Let me ask: is there anything about the reported / documented evidence of the events of 9/11 that you think should receive more attention. I'm not a Dem. supporter, so bash Bill Clinton, anybody that you think may have been part of allowing this is happen, even if you agree with the 9/11 Commission who said something like: "it was a failure of imagination".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Jujigatami said...
Oh, now you are all of a sudden going to start defending the sanity of Jim Fetzer?
James,
BG doesn't have any problem with Fetzers sanity or his assertions.
He has a problem with his tone.
Like I said before... Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs! "
Jujigatami,
In general, what you just said of me is accurate (of course I disagree with the Cocoa Puffs remark).
Fetzer presents a major problem, however. If I had the organization and the smarts, and the time to try to make the 9/11 movement successful, Fetzer would have to be marginalized, because his public face and leadership seems to me to be inconsistent with the movement gaining respect.
I have zero experience in any of this (launching / managing PR efforts, etc.). I don't think I'd have the stomach for the ugliness that almost would certainly be part of reforming an organization consistence with making the case honestly and persuasively.
It's kind of ironic that those who have the skills to do what is needed to be done are much more likely to earn big bucks practicing their skills for causes that can result in benfits for big moneied interests.
I don't want to drone on here, but let me say:
If, when I was on Fetzer's radio show, I had said what I think, I would have said:
Listen, you fu** up, you are either a fool or a plant. I don't care which. Your sloppiness, and your misplaced bravado are a disgrace. You don't have the right speak for anyone except yourself. It likely that regardless of how hard any of us tries to expose the truth, we'll get nowhere. However, your leadersip seems to guarantee failure.
BG, here are my thoughts with regards to 9/11 fuck ups:
We know that there existed warnings that were unheeded. Now the question is: How many warnings did the FBI/CIA get a day? One? 10? 500? If the number is large, is it worth the manpower to investigate each one fully?
And we also know that the warnings were pretty general, e.g. "Al Qaeda is planning something that may have to do with planes."
And we know, through the 9/11 investigation that there were serious miscommunications between the agencies. And the department of Homeland Security, (Patriot Act crap aside) was built to solve that problem.
Now what I don't understand, if you believe that the government has the ability to release these other videos, is why you haven't filed an FOIA request to get them?
Just to clarify: I mean 500 warnings that weren't necessarily related to 9/11.
My question is: why do we need the video released? We have enough evidence as is that there's zero question the flight crashed into the Pentagon.
BG, I don't know how you stop Fetzer now he has a head of steam up. And remember, he has his own motivations here; selling books and DVDs. Any notion that he's going to voluntarily pull back for the good of the "Movement" is bound to be disappointed.
As for the Pentagon video from the other locations, I'd love to see it released at some point, although I am sure there are legal issues to be resolved as to ownership. But let's say that the video does eventually come out and it clearly shows an AA airliner crashing into the Pentagon. What is your theory at that point? Fake video? If you accept it was a passenger plane then you're going to almost have to accept AA 11 and UA 175 into the towers. Do you drop back to hijackers and LIHOP with CD?
Me: YES! I HATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES! Oh wait, I meant to say "Soviet Indoctrination centers!"
...that's not exactly what libertarians believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home