Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory...

[ConspiRaider]

I prefer the Feng Shui Overload theory myself, but I would have to look further into that Flying Squirrel theory...

That's a good one, Pard

I now predict a split not dissimilar to the Jones / Fetzer / Woods / Reynolds split in the Movement.

I wonder if flying squirrels employ Feng Shui in their nest-building and interior design?

Flyeng Shuiquirrels?

It's a PLOT!!!!1111ONE!!!!111one!!!SAM!!KINISON!!!11ONE!

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's a good one, Pard

I now predict a split not dissimilar to the Jones / Fetzer / Woods / Reynolds split in the Movement.

I wonder if flying squirrels employ Feng Shui in their nest-building and interior design?

Flyeng Shuiquirrels?

It's a PLOT!!!!1111ONE!!!!111one!!!SAM!!KINISON!!!11ONE!

Don't forget those of us who don't believe the squirrels fly at all (an unnecessary complication!) but are deployed through a vast network of secret tunnels.

 

[PerryLogan]

This is the Thread Police.

There will be no more talk about squirrels.

 

[beachnut]

.....and they'll both ALSO tell you that I don't "cheat"

No "cheating" with a doctored War Crimes Complaint and no "cheating" with me refusing to engage in "intellectual dishonesty"

How long have you suffered from depression?

 

[twinstead]

The scrutiny of their theories the truthers would receive from legitimate scientific organizations will make what we do here to them seem pleasant. I suspect that's why they eschew them. Having a paper that suggests the official story is less plausible than CD published in a REAL scientific journal, or be embraced by a reputable scientific organization just about anywhere in the world would be an unimaginable coup for the truth movement and they know it.

Yet it hasn't happened. To this layman, this is incredibly telling.

I also agree that we do indeed get a high percentage of crazies here whose theories are easy to debunk. IMO a lot of that is because the relatively more rational ones aren't crazy enough to debate those who know what they are talking about.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Well obviously you may say you defeated truthers about WTC.

But in 8 pages I haven't seen Mineta mentionned and Cheney's unsupported timeline on the morning of 9/11.

Of course, you'll say that Mineta confused his timeline, that he was talking about F93... Etc.

But now that the neo-cons are starting to be rebuffed... (has anybody read what brzezinski recely declared in public? I recommend it, it's... strange) everywhere, that Libby & co 's honesty is questionned in a court of law, well, we'll see what happens.

Keep enjoying what you think is "a victory"... but you should read the news, Loose Change is getting a serious news coverage (see daily mail). I personally think that this movie is full of errors, but it conveys the LIHOP theory. That's enough for me.

Enjoy!

Busherie

bolding mine.
it figures......

 

[Kenose]

I honestly hesitate to associate his name with the truth movement, which has clearly become a derogatory term over time - but I believe the answer to this question is Peter Dale Scott. Yes, he contributed to and helped edit a DRG book, but they do not believe the same things.

Scott does not claim that 9/11 was a false-flag outright by any means, but certainly believes there are problems with the situation. He appears to have an absolutely spotless reputation concerning his research and insights as an author. I know these topics may raise red flags with many of you, but he has written on Vietnam, CIA drug trade, JFK (extensively), and now 9/11. Scott is known for his use of "deep politics" or the "deep state" as opposed to the "public state" terminologically.

With that said, I am new to his writing. But for what it's worth, he appears to be hands and feet above the names we're all familiar with. I have listened to a couple of lengthy interviews and recently bought "The Road to 9/11" which I should be getting to in the next couple of days as I finish Tarpley's mixed bag of insight, errors, and assumptions.

I'm told that the UC Press did a very thorough investigation of Scott's sourcing before publishing such a polemic. Interesting to say the least.

The book is on amazon. I can't post a link yet.

--------------

Another note, since this is my first real post here:

This forum along with Mark's 9/11 links have helped me develop an understanding of the truth movement that is much more clear now than it was a few months ago. Although I have not come to conclusions, and likely won't in the near future, I now wince at the sight or sound of truthers continuously pushing their point of view, while it seems as though they are unable and unwilling to reconcile their position with those who disagree with them.

 

[R.Mackey]

I honestly hesitate to associate his name with the truth movement, which has clearly become a derogatory term over time - but I believe the answer to this question is Peter Dale Scott. Yes, he contributed to and helped edit a DRG book, but they do not believe the same things.

Scott does not claim that 9/11 was a false-flag outright by any means, but certainly believes there are problems with the situation. He appears to have an absolutely spotless reputation concerning his research and insights as an author. I know these topics may raise red flags with many of you, but he has written on Vietnam, CIA drug trade, JFK (extensively), and now 9/11. Scott is known for his use of "deep politics" or the "deep state" as opposed to the "public state" terminologically.

Welcome to the forum, Kenose, and welcome to my very old thread. Well stated. I too have only passing familiarity with Peter Dale Scott. From your description, it doesn't appear that he is part of the Truth Movement at all -- he doesn't seem to deal in any of the false evidence coming from folks like Dr. Griffin or Dr. Jones.

Instead, his whole notion of "deep politics" appears much too vague and poorly phrased to make any firm conclusions one way or the other. I accept, of course, that any political organization will have secrets and will attempt to spin information. But I do not accept that this tendency is evidence of wrongdoing or of any major conspiracy. There's a grain of truth in his writings, but nothing definitive enough to support the Truth Movement.

Again, I am only barely familiar with his works; this is a suitable topic for a follow-up thread if anyone wants to pursue it.