Daily Mail Puff Piece on the "Scholars"
This piece is not nearly critical enough of Fetzer, Jones & Company.
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
James looked into the Scholars awhile ago, and discovered that only a small portion of them were actually scientists; most of them are professors of philosophy, English, etc.
posted by Pat @ 1:40 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Pat/ James, didn't one of you do a break down on the Scholars?
That would go nice in an E-mail to them!
In fact, with press coverage probably increasing over the next few days it might be prudent to reorganize the top post, particularly since you come up so prominently in google searches. Maybe something like:
THE SCHOLARS ARE NEITHER LEADING NOR SCHOLARS
(link)
(link)
(link)
THE S0-CALLED "EVIDENCE" IS EASILY DEBUNKED
(link)
(link)
(link)
THE '9-11 SKEPTICS' HAVE DISDAIN FOR THE VICTIMS
(link)
(link)
(link)
MANY OF THE 'SKEPTICS' ARE PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS/HOLOCAUST DENIERS/ETC
(link)
(link)
(link)
&ct.
Reporters are lazy. Give them all the help they can easily google.
atheistic dullards whose entire faith-based reality rests on 1 word "incompetence".
The moron doesn't realize the inconsistency in his own statement.
Atheists and faith go together like cats and water.
dullards
deluded people
Irony'd.
atheistic dullards whose entire faith-based reality rests on 1 word "incompetence".
And yours rests on two words: "the jews".
I'm not an atheist, BTW. I got to the same church Syeven Jones used to be a member of before he converted to the truthseeker cult.
Nearly half of them were still alive the next day.
You folks still going to repeat falsehoods?
who couldn't control a Cessna
Correction: couldn't land a Cessna.
brand new scientific "pancake" theory.
How is that new? Hell, I figured it out before any scientific papers were published. It was perfectly logical.
a group of foreign guys at a Florida strip club said: "Let's get Korans and boxcutters and hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers."
Red Herring: Nobody ever claimed this; all scenarios point to the 19 hijackers being highly trained, well prepared, and well funded. This was no fly-by-night operation (excuse the pun).
But most of all they flew badly and partied and flunked flight school.
Wrong: One of them didn't manage to pass because he needed work on his landings (whether that's because he was a bad pilot, or because he didn't care about learning to land, is open to interpretation). Several others not only qualified on light aircraft, but were also licensed commercial pilots.
"But how will we deceive NORAD," said one flunky?
Red Herring: Who ever said they'd need to deceive NORAD?
"And how will we get past airport security," asked another?
Red Herring: Pre 9/11, getting past security with box cutters and even knives was child's play. Even if one or two got caught, they could feign ignorance and then board the plane sans-weapon(s).
"And how many millions should we invest in Put Options," said a third?
Red Herring: The put option nonsense has been debunked several times, and I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say, while the volume of put options may have been higher than the average, there were numerous times over the course of the year when they were higher than on the days leading up to 9/11.
They discovered that NORAD and the Pentagon would be having some military exercises on the exact same day they chose for their mission.
Irrelevant: The planned exercise was a week long, annual event. Even had it not been, "NORAD and the Pentagon" conduct so many exercises during the course of a year that it'd be more unlikely for an attack to occur on a day when no exercises were scheduled.
Although several top US officials knew in advance not to fly that day, nobody warned any average citizen.
Wrong: There's never been any evidence to suggest that any US officials avoided flying due to concerns about their safety.
"We'll get past Israeli security at Logan airport in Boston by posing as Arab terrorists. We won't even check in or show proper credentials. We'll just go right on through, like ghosts."
Wrong on many different levels: Security wasn't Israeli. They didn't pose as Arab terrorists; in fact many didn't even look Muslim. And I'm not sure where the claims about them not showing credentials come from, but looking at the batting average so far I'm pretty sure that's wrong too.
How to make these massive towers, built with an enormous inner core to withstand 180 mph hurricanes
Pure Idiocy: Steel aircraft traveling at 500mph have quite a bit more kinetic energy than air particles moving at 180 mph.
engineered to survive the impact of a jumbo jet, actually fall down?
Wrong: They weren't designed to survive an aircraft impact. This rumor comes from the fact that after it had been built studies were done which suggested the towers could survive the impact of an airliner. Whether those studies were accurate or not is unknown since the details are no longer available. Whether or not it was accurate, the study concluded the towers could withstand the impact of a 707, an aircraft that's smaller, lighter, and carries less fuel than a 767.
The Newtonian laws of gravity and physics, and the long history of burning steel skyscrapers (None had ever fallen down before--or since) seemed to be against them.
Irrelevant: No steel skyscraper had ever been hit by a 767 before. Gravity and physics worked just fine on that day; it's only certain peoples understanding of physics which is flawed.
And so the laws of physics and logic waffled that day.
See above.
"We can also knock down the CIA headquarters in New York City,
Red Herring: There's no data to suggest that the terrorists intended to destroy WTC7. In fact, according to Osama, they didn't expect the towers to collapse either, let alone bring down several other buildings with them.
The mighty Pentagon was next to fall. A fortress guarded by many layers of security
Red Herring: Locks, pass-cards, and security guards are generally ineffective at stopping passenger aircraft traveling at 500 miles per hour.
pulling ten G's
Wrong: Airliners cannot pull 10 G's. Their wings would fall off, at which point they'd fly like very large pop machines. Flight 77 certainly didn't perform any such maneuver. Thundernuts here is simply pulling numbers out of his rear-end.
Sure, they never received their certification in small planes but they had outfoxed NORAD, Israeli security and the combined resources of the US Air Force in the airspace over America.
Wrong: Just repetition of points already discussed.
Nearly half of them were still alive the next day.
Wrong: None of them are alive. Some were reported to be alive but the reports turned out to be wrong. If they were alive, they would certainly have made an appearance on the David Letterman show by now.
19 flight school dropouts who couldn't control a Cessna had destroyed seven heavily-insured steel skyscrapers and the recently remodeled wing of the Pentagon, while outwitting airport security, smashing CIA and SEC headquarters in a 47-story New York skyscraper they hadn't even hit, while devising a brand new scientific "pancake" theory. All while remaining alive and forcing the entire US population to live in terror, utterly taxed for the unforeseeable future, to pay for the trillions in new war toys and security measures, in a fruitless manhunt to find the alleged mastermind.
Wrong: Just repetition of points already discussed.
USAF veteran and amateur historian, Douglas Herman is the contorversial author of The Guns of Dallas. He recieves mail at douglasherman7@yahoo.com
Douglas Herman is an ultra-left-wing whackjob who'll take absolutely any opportunity offered to bash a republican government.
CHF, I count way more than 8 lies :)
Imagine these people as jurors in major trials. Could you imagine the number of criminals that would go free on circumstantial evidence?
Or, conversely, the number that would get convicted on...well, no evidence at all?
Post a Comment
<< Home