Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp

[dtugg]

I live in the US, and can't name a single US diplomat. Even though I spend time on political blogs.

You've never heard of Condi Rice?

 

[metamars]

metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.

Maybe, if you're lucky, one of the JREF "critical thinkers" will use their awesome powers of intellect, and play devil's advocate. Finding such a person, who isn't drunk on the JREF whine, will probably be difficult....

 

[metamars]

You've never heard of Condi Rice?

Yes, she's Secretary of State. Does that make her a diplomat?

 

[dtugg]

Yes, she's Secretary of State. Does that make her a diplomat?

Yes. The highest diplomat in the country save for maybe the President.

 

[dtugg]

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.

Maybe, if you're lucky, one of the JREF "critical thinkers" will use their awesome powers of intellect, and play devil's advocate. Finding such a person, who isn't drunk on the JREF whine, will probably be difficult....

The reason that JREF is hostile to twoofers is because they have no evidence for their claims and are stupid and/or crazy to the last one.

BTW, how do you reconcile what your hero Noam Chomsky says about 9/11 (he says it wasn't MIHOP or LIHOP) with your beliefs?

 

[Athyrio]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55............

Sometimes old men need to use the privy.

Excuse me - brb.

 

[Corsair 115]

Whatsamatta U? Reading comprehension problems?

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.

Semantic evasions.

You still haven't explained why the CBC and The Toronto Star are not leaping to tell the tale of the conspiracists. You just keep insisting something suspicious is going on without ever bothering to offer even a shred of tangible evidence.

 

[MikeW]

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.

Ah, a useful link for everyone to see exactly how little substance he provides. Well, the real link is, anyway - click here for the document.

 

[sleahead]

I skimmed through that link and what did I find?

A celebrated example of prompt interception was with the crippled airplane of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, which had fighter aircrafton its wingtips soon after it was observed erring off course.68

Oh Lordie....

 

[Travis]

I skimmed through that link and what did I find?

A celebrated example of prompt interception was with the crippled airplane of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999, which had fighter aircrafton its wingtips soon after it was observed erring off course.68

Oh Lordie....

Anyone dumb enough to use that as evidence has just destroyed all credibility of their writing and for themselves. Anyone using Peter Dale Scott as a source for anything from here on out will be laughed at for long periods of time.

 

[metamars]

Semantic evasions.

You still haven't explained why the CBC and The Toronto Star are not leaping to tell the tale of the conspiracists. You just keep insisting something suspicious is going on without ever bothering to offer even a shred of tangible evidence.

Semantic evasions, eh?

Tell you what, why don't you ask Professor Chomsky why the Star didn't do a front-page series on President Bush as a war criminal. Googling 'site:thestar.com Bush Zubaydah' yields all of 6 hits. Those articles don't contain the term "war criminal".. (I'll guess that the CBC will yield similar results). Report back to us what he tells you, won't you? And please don't forget to ask him about the big conspiracy which prevented the Star from even posing the question as an editorial. Finally, don't forget to grace us with your expert, well thought out opinion as to whether Chomsky's answer is a "semantic evasion". It's always delightful to see the the deep thoughts of a JREF "debunker" put on display.....

(Also: Googling 'site:thestar.com "war crime" Zubaydah' yields 0 hits.)

If a newspaper won't connect those dots, even as a hypothesis to be explored in a freakin' editorial, why on God's green earth would anybody expect them to fund a serious investigation of 911, which especially attempts to follow up leads likely to yield a version contradictory to the US Government fairy tale(s)? You know, like investigating the non-Muslim, non-Arab associates of Mohammed Atta? (BTW, googling 'site:thestar.com atta' yields all of 4 pages; what kind of a rag is this? They don't even seem interested in the officially approved narratives of 9/11!)

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.

Happily, the realnews.com interviewed him just the other day. They've been in existence maybe 3 years. Could it be a coincidence that therealnews.com accepts no advertising, and no government funds?

 

[Gravy]

I'd like to oblige you, but paying the bills comes first. Perhaps if JREF wasn't such a hostile environment, there'd be a vast supply of posters with more time on their hands than I have, to elaborate.

Just as I thought: once again you've started a thread but can't explain why. Please stop doing that. It just creates noise.

If you can't explain why something matters, why in the world should anyone else care?

 

[Gravy]

Semantic evasions, eh?

Tell you what, why don't you ask Professor Chomsky why the Star didn't do a front-page series on President Bush as a war criminal. Googling 'site:thestar.com Bush Zubaydah' yields all of 6 hits. Those articles don't contain the term "war criminal".. (I'll guess that the CBC will yield similar results). Report back to us what he tells you, won't you? And please don't forget to ask him about the big conspiracy which prevented the Star from even posing the question as an editorial. Finally, don't forget to grace us with your expert, well thought out opinion as to whether Chomsky's answer is a "semantic evasion". It's always delightful to see the the deep thoughts of a JREF "debunker" put on display.....

(Also: Googling 'site:thestar.com "war crime" Zubaydah' yields 0 hits.)

If a newspaper won't connect those dots, even as a hypothesis to be explored in a freakin' editorial, why on God's green earth would anybody expect them to fund a serious investigation of 911, which especially attempts to follow up leads likely to yield a version contradictory to the US Government fairy tale(s)? You know, like investigating the non-Muslim, non-Arab associates of Mohammed Atta? (BTW, googling 'site:thestar.com atta' yields all of 4 pages; what kind of a rag is this? They don't even seem interested in the officially approved narratives of 9/11!)

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.

Happily, the realnews.com interviewed him just the other day. They've been in existence maybe 3 years. Could it be a coincidence that therealnews.com accepts no advertising, and no government funds?

Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 "truth" movement":

My reasons for giving this low priority are simple: it has been draining enormous energy away from work on far more serious crimes of the administration against the US population and the world (which is why, I suspect, it is getting such a tolerant reception in the mainstream, dramatically different from the hysterical abuse and slanders that are elicited at once by anything directed to real power interests). That would be sufficient reason to give it low priority.

Further reason is that to evaluate the alleged evidence requires the kind of expert knowledge that can’t be picked up from surfing the internet: it requires substantial understanding of civil/mechanical engineering, the specific characteristics of the building, evaluation of photos, etc., and I don’t see dropping what I’m doing and taking off a great deal of time to pick up the requisite background and evalute the evidence. And a story will also have to be told about the planes and passengers, the massive cover-up involving huge numbers of people and (miraculously) no leaks, and why the administration would have been so utterly insane as to try something like this (which hasn’t the remotest analogue in history).

But those considerations aside, the vasts amount of energy being poured into this has been quite harmful to activism on serious and urgent issues—hence the relevance of the speculations based on the declassification documents.

How do you respond to these statements by your hero, Mr. Chomsky, metamars?

N.B. I believe Chomsky, in spite of being thought of by many as America's foremost intellectual, almost never appears in American media. IIRC, he's only been on PBS twice.

Are you actually incapable of typing "Noam Chomsky PBS" in a Google search box, or are you just too lazy? Either way, you scream "I'm completely incompetent" with every post you make. I know that being anonymous saves you public embarrassment, but don't you have any personal sense of shame at all? What do you gain by your deliberate ignorance?

 

[Corsair 115]

Semantic evasions, eh? ...

I snipped the rest of your post because it's the same old thing. Your hand waving and raising of irrelevant points does not answer the question I originally posed.

Once again, please answer the following in detail:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Can you offer even one shred of tangible material that does not involve opinion writing?

 

[metamars]

Just as I thought: once again you've started a thread but can't explain why. Please stop doing that. It just creates noise.

If you can't explain why something matters, why in the world should anyone else care?

"can't" <> won't invest scarce time explaining


dictionary.reference.com is your friend

 

[metamars]

Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 "truth" movement":

How do you respond to these statements by your hero, Mr. Chomsky, metamars?

I've already addressed the peculiar blind spot of Professor Chomsky to 911, on this very forum. The search function is your friend, also.

Are you actually incapable of typing "Noam Chomsky PBS" in a Google search box, or are you just too lazy? Either way, you scream "I'm completely incompetent" with every post you make. I know that being anonymous saves you public embarrassment, but don't you have any personal sense of shame at all? What do you gain by your deliberate ignorance?

Have you corrected references to the illogical and fallacious (in the sense of being unphysical) Bazant Zhou paper from your 911 "debunking" documents? If not, that screams rather loudly for something other than "complete incompetence", but even less flattering, I should think.

Oh, and how many interviews of Chomsky on PBS do you count?

 

[dtugg]

"can't" <> won't invest scarce time explaining


dictionary.reference.com is your friend

So, if you won't explain, why should anybody else care what you say?

Also, why again is it that your apparent hero, Noam Chomsky, thinks that 9/11 Twoof is bs?

 

[metamars]

I snipped the rest of your post because it's the same old thing. Your hand waving and raising of irrelevant points does not answer the question I originally posed.

Once again, please answer the following in detail:

How are the media of other nations being persuaded and/or compelled not to do stories supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories? How are the typical competitive forces which cause news media outlets to outscoop each other being restrained sufficiently that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy theories? How is the individual professionalism of investigative journalists and reporters in uncovering and presenting important stories to the public being curtailed such that they do not pursue 9/11 conspiracy stories?

Can you offer even one shred of tangible material that does not involve opinion writing?

Gee whiz, it's a good thing you informed me that I was hand-waving. Otherwise, I would have thought that I'd completely destroyed the premise of your nonsense:

This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.

Before I waste any more time with you, why don't you inform us whether or not you think Chomsky was "hand waving" in presenting his arguments in Necessary Illusions. BTW, this book has over 700 references.

Also, do tell us, won't you, whether or not you think Chomsky was lying when he explictly denied references to his notions of media distortion, by a critic of his, as a "conspiracy".

Believe it or not, if it turns out that you deem Chomsky to be a liar, who writes 'hand waving" books, with 700+ references, on media distortion, I just may conclude that it is you who is irrational, and thus not worth 1 more second of my time.

 

[SDC]

Metamars, shouldn't you stop wasting your scarce and valuable time, and get going on your 9/11 wiki? Don't you have a sense of urgency about that? What is the point in wasting your s. and v. time with the likes of the losers 'round here?

 

[JihadJane]

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.

The rigid black and white, conspiracy-theory thinking employed by many "debunkers" on this site makes this distinction impossible to comprehend.