Friday, December 08, 2006

The Nutty Roots

This article on 9-11 Deniers more or less takes the tack that "what can you expect when the administration is so secretive and lies so much", but it does have some good bits:

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the US government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist.

35 Comments:

At 08 December, 2006 09:37, Blogger Democrat said...

Van Lubbe, the Low-IQ nutbar framed with this attack? It has resemblence with the alleged plan by low-IQ bums to attack the Sears Towers.

However, I cannot say much about it since I am not thoroughly into this subject. I believe General Franz Halder stated under oath during the Neurenberg trial that Göring bragged about starting the fire, on 20 April 1942.

""The only person who really knows what happend in the Reichstag is me, because I was the person setting it on fire" while smashing his hand on the table hard".

Of course, Göring denied this.

Hmm, who should you believe?

 
At 08 December, 2006 10:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I'm going to have to go with the man on trial.
Thanks Democrat!

 
At 08 December, 2006 10:02, Blogger R.Lange said...

It has resemblence with the alleged plan by low-IQ bums to attack the Sears Towers.

How is this even related? Your kin aren't trying to compare the alleged Sear Towers plot with the Reichstag fire.

 
At 08 December, 2006 10:04, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Good article I suppose, but it leaves out the 'movements' counter-reponse to the Popular Mechanics article. Shame. I thought it was going to be a fair and balanced article, but then it pulls this stunt leaving the PM article as the soul truth. Shame.

 
At 08 December, 2006 10:09, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Mistakes are made, but never yeah right,if that were the case the odds would dictate would at times fall in favor of the people but we don't see thatbr/>i> because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Check your Republican Membership card at the door please. How elementary of a statement can you make? Apparently the author hasn't studied the origins of the Vietnam war through recently declassified documents.

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:19, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Democrat said:

Hmm, who should you believe?


Neither of them, although Halder only claimed that Goering had joked about setting the fire, which wouldn't be that unusual since there was a popular rumour at the time that he had a secret passageway from his offices into the Reichstag.

The article's accurate about the general historical view about what happened incidentally - van der Lubbe set a number of fires around the Reichstag until he was arrested by police. The Nazi leaders, after getting over their initial shock, quickly rallied behind the idea of trying to portray it as a wider Communist plot (although most Communists had already repudiated van der Lubbe after an earlier attempt at arson). One of the best accounts I've read by a contemporary is here:

http://www.seftondelmer.co.uk/reichstag-fire.htm

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:21, Blogger Richard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:22, Blogger Richard said...

Maybe dem or swing can help me out with this one. As far as I know only one particular event can happen at any one time. Were not living in a quantum world where 5 different versions of something can happened at the same time. So, if the "truth" about 9/11 is so damn obvious to you guys why the hell can't you get a story together. Only one thing could have happened that day. Here we are 5 years later and still no grand unified theory of 9/11. Wouldn't this lead someone to believe that perhaps the "evidence" and "facts" that you have don't really add up. If you had this information you would not only be able to disprove other theories but provide absolute proof for your theory. 5 years later and no one has done it yet.

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard said...

Here's your answer about 9/11, and why the story isn't clear:

JFK Assassination

(which is to say that when there are powerful forces as play that don't want the truth to emerge, there are quite a few ways to muddy (and sometimes bloody) the water.

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:35, Blogger Democrat said...

You are claiming that a bunch of ordinary citizens can come up with a 100% story on 911.

I got news for you.

I wasn't at the Pentagon
I wasn't in NORAD control center
I wasn't at the WTC
I wasn't in Shanksville
Most important, I didn't come up with a 911 commission report stated to be the official story.

Now, do you agree that I do not have to defend the official story nor have to agree with the official story?

Thank you.

Now for the official story. It has been rendered as the true account of what happened on 911. I think it is flawed at certain points and there is no law forbidding me to question the OS.

If your argument would be that questioning the OS upon false or not proper argumentation, you would have a point. However, if your argument would be that 911 truthers should provide absolute proof for a single and only theory, you are dismissing the position 911 truthers are in. Besides, all the evidence has been washed away already.

As we say: confidence comes by foot, and leaves by horse.

 
At 08 December, 2006 13:16, Blogger troy said...

In a bout 45 minutes, nutball Barrett is going to be on the phone with nuball Fetzer to discuss the dissent amongst the nutty not-so-scholarly twits for 9/11 twoof.

gcn stream 2.

 
At 08 December, 2006 13:56, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I am very pleased to announce that Lyte Tripps "Super Secret" evidence will soon be released!!!
The video is currently being edited by some pimply faced 20ish (he could be 19) year old.
This is first hand info and I feel comfortable sharing his because Lyte has bragged about it to soooo many people and he is so phuckin delusional that he presents this bullshit to people and acts as though everyone agrees with him.

It is painful watching him spew this crap but I must admire his passion....sort of like the way an addict will justify his drug use.
I am not implying he uses drugs just giving an analogy.

So as you can tell this "video" ought to be of the highest quality.

I can imagine that in about 5 years alot of these truthers will be standing at street corners babbling to themselves.

For those following along he claims the light poles around the pentagon were planted as well as other crap that gives me a headache just thinking about.

He still claims (although I am not sure if it is in his "video") that the passengers on flight 77 were "executed" and it was "perfectly timed" explosions that masked the plane or planes flying away from the pentagon.

In the breath though when you ask him about the flight 77 passengers he will say "well they were probably executed but that is not up to us to prove".

Well gee you claim that the plane did not hit the pentagon SO ASSHOLE YOU DONT GET THE SAFE "NOT UP TO US" TO AVOID THIS QUESTION!!!

STAY TUNED I AM SURE THIS IS GOING TO GET BETTER!!!

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

troy seems to have called in as Jeb from KY

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:44, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

BG was probably committed" as Bill in KY.

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying_Dylan said...

I see you still find fun in slinging mud.

Big fun for everyone? Isn't everyone a little bit tired of your "erudite" treatments of this serious subject.

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very pleased to announce that Lyte Tripps "Super Secret" evidence will soon be released!!!

Where this will evidence be posted?

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:52, Blogger Yatesey said...

Bg, get off your high horse, everyone's guilty of it, including you.

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yatesey said...

noted.

 
At 08 December, 2006 15:05, Blogger troy said...

troy seems to have called in as Jeb from KY

Heehee :honksnort:

 
At 08 December, 2006 15:43, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I see you still find fun in slinging mud.
AT YOU?
SURE!!!!


Big fun for everyone? Isn't everyone a little bit tired of your "erudite" treatments of this serious subject.

I can see why you would take a thread called "The Nutty Roots" and reference the word "erudite"(Characterized by extensive reading or knowledge; learned).

I am sure you are very learned in the areas of Nuttiness. I mean you practice it the moment they wake until they sedate you at night.

 
At 08 December, 2006 15:43, Blogger Alex said...

The big difference is that nobody ever claimed that the Reichstag fire was started with thermite and starwars lasers, or that the guy seen carrying the can of gas and pack of matches was really a hologram.

 
At 08 December, 2006 15:45, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Where this will evidence be posted?

Porbably at some psychiatric hospital or the Loose Change forums.

Well they are pretty much one in the same.

 
At 08 December, 2006 16:09, Blogger Richard said...

If your argument would be that questioning the OS upon false or not proper argumentation, you would have a point. However, if your argument would be that 911 truthers should provide absolute proof for a single and only theory, you are dismissing the position 911 truthers are in. Besides, all the evidence has been washed away already.

Position your in?!?!? Your the true patriots right? Were just "shills." If you guys want the truth so bad then maybe it would be in your best interest to, I don't know....

COME UP WITH A DAMN THEORY!!!!

If you ever want the truth to be told you should probably figure out what that "truth" is. How hard is it really? As far as evidence goes, you guys desperatly need absolute proof if you want your movement to continue. Specks in the sky and sulfur at ground zero are NOT examples of absolute proof. There has been more than enough evidence to support the OS, why can't you guys find anything? I'll give you a hint, there is none.

 
At 08 December, 2006 16:37, Blogger shawn said...

but then it pulls this stunt leaving the PM article as the soul truth.

Probably because it was. Well "sole" was the word you were looking for. And there's nothing but the "sole truth". There aren't multiple truths.

JFK Assassination

What does a murder by a lone crazy have to do with 9/11?

 
At 08 December, 2006 18:15, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This article actually gives no corner to the truthers. It does continue a tradition on the far left of not wanting to say anything that implies a defense of the Administration, so the truthers get off rather easily. Essentially, “they have no evidence but people are right to fear the worst about this Administration.”

It also basically says conspiracy theories have gained ground as the Bush Administration's support and credibility have declined. There is some truth (no pun intended) to that. It also correctly notes the speed of information in the modern age also give conspiracy theories greater ability to spread.

Bush and Cheney will likely go down as abject failures for getting us into an unnecessary and unwinnable war. The popularity of these stupid theories is, at least in part, another result of their incompetence.

One might wish the twoofers would devote their energies to more worthwhile criticisms of the Administration, but I guess they are free to be idiots.

 
At 08 December, 2006 18:19, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 08 December, 2006 18:22, Blogger ConsDemo said...

However, if your argument would be that 911 truthers should provide absolute proof for a single and only theory, you are dismissing the position 911 truthers are in.

Actualy, one coherent comprehensive theory might work, but the twoofers can't even manage that.

Besides, all the evidence has been washed away already.

Yes, how convenient, just like the dog eating your homework.

 
At 08 December, 2006 18:44, Blogger Alex said...

Bush and Cheney will likely go down as abject failures for getting us into an unnecessary and unwinnable war.

Depends on who writes the history books. I know most don't want to believe it, but there WILL be large-scale warfare involving multiple western nations against the middle east, and quite possibly involving chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I give it 10-15 years max, although it could be much sooner. Assuming that the western nations come out of it victorious, Bush will either be written about as a visionary who attempted to avert that conflict, or he'll simply be forgotten about. If the Muslims win, he'll be written about as the bastard who dared defy Allah, and brought about the last crusade. Either way I don't much care what they say about him, the only important thing is whether his actions give us a better chance at victory in the long run.

 
At 08 December, 2006 19:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well, I hope you are wrong about the ultimate clash of civilizations, but I will grant you it is a possibility.

As for Bush, I wanted him to do well. I'm not blinded by hate for him, but I simply can't defend his bad decisions.

 
At 08 December, 2006 19:59, Blogger Alex said...

Agreed. I thought he did an excellent job in the year after 9/11. Started slipping a bit after that, but I was with him when he decided to go into Iraq. Over the last 2-3 years though, he's managed to alienate pretty much everyone, including some of his strongest supporters. I don't agree with a lot of what he's done recently, and I just don't have the energy to try and defend the guy any more.

 
At 08 December, 2006 20:06, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Yeah, for the country's sake, I hope his last two years don't prove to be a disaster. About the only thing that makes him look good these days are the twoofers idiotic criticisms. Hey, wait a minute.... Now that sounds like a real conspiracy!

 
At 10 December, 2006 03:20, Blogger Democrat said...

but there WILL be large-scale warfare involving multiple western nations against the middle east, and quite possibly involving chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I give it 10-15 years max, although it could be much sooner

Resource wars or something different? The 14 permanent bases following the Iraq occupation sure come in handy in that vision.

 
At 10 December, 2006 03:45, Blogger Democrat said...

Let's not forget what people with a brain report, breaking throught the usual smoke and mirrors for the less fortunate citizens.

 
At 10 December, 2006 06:32, Blogger ConsDemo said...

What does the LA Times article have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?

The author appears to be reading things into ISG report that may not be there.

This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

The use of the phrase "could be" allows him to express his own opinion rather than that of the ISG. This author is apparently ignorant of the fact that most international oil companies are state-owned, not private companies. Even the state-owned ones contract with the big private firms because the latter bring efficiency, expertise and technology to extract and refine the product. The ones that try to limit private involvement tend to have worse output. If they really want to boost Iraqi oil production, they will end up bringing private firms but not necessarily as owners of the product and however much the author may want to see this as "privatization" the text he quotes doesn't actually say that.

However, I actually agree with your larger point although I differ on the reason. Oil is one reason the U.S. has such a high profile in the Middle East. It isn’t the only reason, our slavish loyalty to Israel, fear of terrorism, a sense of noblesse oblige also are reasons, but oil definitely counts. However, it isn’t necessarily the oil industry that makes it count.

The American oil industry doesn’t need the U.S. military to invade countries to get business, they are perfectly happy to deal with anti-American rogue states and have been for decades. Rather the concern is American oil supply would be disrupted by a major conflagration in the Middle East. That would cause energy prices to skyrocket and cause a major economic slowdown. Thus, the thinking goes, if we want to avoid a recession and/or consumers screaming at politicians about high prices, we need the U.S. military to provide stability in the region to take out rogue elements like Saddam. Even if this was a worthy goal (and it isn’t), the Iraq experience proves the U.S. military can’t guarantee stability in the region.

However, the reason for the American presence isn’t evil oil company executives’ fear of state-owned oil industries (the majors were all for easing up sanctions on Iraq in 1990s) but unreasonable expectations by American consumers. If we want to kick the oil habit, higher energy prices are one of the surest way to lower our consumption and encourage consumption of alternative fuels.

If you were one of those blubbering about “unfair energy prices” or “price gouging” in the last year, you are as much to blame for our presence in Iraq as anyone else.

 
At 11 December, 2006 13:32, Blogger Democrat said...

It's about control, not about bringing oil home.

Price gauging is something government is good for as well, difficult as it is to build some good refinery capacity and introducing quality standards different for each state, tressing the already stressed refinery capacity even more.

I focus more on the permanent presence in Iraq than the oil thingy, although not entirely irrelevant (control).

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home