How they found it I'll never know
A couple weeks back I slammed the East County Democratic Club for sponsoring a showing of the 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change." If you ever wanted evidence that the nutroots are not to be trusted with national security, then their embrace of a film which blames a massive conspiracy for the 9/11 attacks and not 19 Arab terrorists should suffice.
There was relative silence on that post until yesterday, when a couple of terror apologists somehow found it among the millions of pages on the Internet. From what I could tell, there was no blog-posting pointing to that page and the two three-initial posters are in fact two different people (as far as I can tell, i.e. they have different IP addresses).
First there was RCL:
I was surprised to find that the movie was pretty good. Sure, there are a few things wrong here and there, but there are a lot of loose ends, to be sure, ends that Bush and company don’t want to talk about, such as:
I love this partial fig leaf from the nutter. Yeah, there are problems, but...
Yeah, it's not totally accurate, but Bush did it...
Because that's what these people are really saying.
As for the three points RCL brings up.
They're debunked here, here and here.
RPA then follows up, acknowledging there are problems with the film -- again to give the appearance of sanity -- but warns us to not believe what the government tells us.
Fine. I don't believe the government when they say that Social Security will be just fine until 2053.
But what these wackos are asking us to believe is nothing less than that George W. Bush, in office less than nine months, had arranged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving thousands of people (to do everything conspiracy theorists believe was done, it would take thousands) and arranged for the deaths of nearly three thousand others all in order to ... do what exactly?
These are not serious people, period.
On a related note: It seems that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is joining the wackos, and sullying what little remains of their good name.
*UPDATE* Incoming? I still don't know how they originally found this site, but there may be more of them coming. Apparently the East County Democratic Club has sent out a message on their mailing list encouraging members to come here (a "neocon blogger site") and leave a comment about their decision to sponsor a showing of "Loose Change."
A couple of questions for incoming Democratic Party members:
1) Is there any sort of conspiracy theory which is beyond the pale? Is there any slander which you will not countenance? If "Loose Change" is OK, then how about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to happen? Holocaust denial?
2) Would you be just a little bit outraged or upset had the East County Republican Club (Is there one? Or is theirs just a county GOP organization?) had sponsored a public viewing of the movie that purported to show that the Clintons had murdered Vince Foster? Or one that claimed the Clintons arranged for Ron Brown to die in that plane crash? (All of which I find ludicrous, just for the record.)
0 comments on “How they found it I'll never know”
Tags
[...] *UPDATE* Comments for this post have been closed. I don’t like these things popping up on two week old posts. If you want to comment further on this issue, please go here and comment on the newer post. [...]
I was on a blog the other day and discussing 9/11 with the whackjob left - and after seeing the utterly pathetic and ridiculous comments ("The WTC was brought down by detonations" and "Bush knew and allowed 9/11 to happen"), I felt like I needed a bath.
How anyone could allow a party dominated by such psychotic people to gain any semblance of control in this country, be it state or federal, is beyond my comprehension.
The movie was just shown on August 13th, only just over a week ago, and less than a week since I last posted an entry on your (somewhat biased) site. That doesnt' sound too old to me. Sure, there will always be apologists for the lame investigation performed by the 9/11 commission, a commission that Bush never wanted to have happen, BTW, but was forced to open and wound up performing what most experts in the 9/11 truth movement believe is nothing more than a coverup.
If you think you have such a corner on the truth, my friend, perhaps you can explain why NONE OF THE HIJACKERS APPEAR ON ANY PASSENGER MANIFESTS? If the airlines did such a lousy job of tracking the passengers on the flights (None of them add up), then they should be held criminally negligent! You mean to say that a flight attendant would not notice five middle-easterners on their flight WITH NO TICKETS? It's absurd. And, until you can explain the INCONSISTENCY in the passenger lists, I would advise you to park your remarks about the questions being asked.
Why not ask legitimate questions about the utter lack of diligence in the investigation and report? We know now that by this time, the DHS was gutted and Bush cronies put in place, such as (probably your favorite) Michael "Brownie" Brown. The same FEMA that got caught with their thumb in their "mouth" was doing the same evil deeds in the 9/11 disaster. Cover up and ignore.
Again, I challenge you to explain the passenger problem:
http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm
Either put up or shut up.
RCL.
Ok, I looked at your references. The problem is that the Airlines SHOULD have reliable lists of who was on the plane right away. It should not take any research or DNA matching, or body counting. There should be no missing people on any of the lists. It turns out that all the lists had missing people -- they don't add up. Something was clearly wrong with the bookkeeping being done by AA and United, and it doesn't square with my experience flying. They always had very accurate lists of who was on board. It should have been possible to take the ORIGINAL lists and see names on the list that represented the hijackers. Sure, I would expect that they would use false names. Those early CNN reports were based on the initial information from the Airlines. The fact that someone was able to generate a very detailed graphic after the fact is not relying on contemporaneous information, that is the original PASSSENGER MANIFESTS from the airlines. Show me those, my friend.
The WTC-7 issue is suspect because it was NEVER EVEN MENTIONED in the official 9/11 report. Why not? Is it not important to mention a 48 story building in the WTC complex that fell to the ground very unusually? I watched it, and being that I am an engineer, my intuition was that it would not go all the way down. Same with the twin towers. You may not have this structural intuition, and I understand that you will be led by whomever you want to believe. I just look with my own eyes.
The Neocons such as yourself, who are willing to stand and watch a fascist takeover of our government, would have probably fit in well in Nazi Germany. Open your eyes, my friend. They presupposed that the terrorists would be Muslims and they fit the evidence to fit the resuppossision, just as stated by the Downing St. Minutes. Just like the Oklahoma City Federal Building, (they said it was Islamic's) the initial guess may have been wrong. As the FBI director admitted, there is no solid proof of who the hijackers really were. It is only a guess. That is an admission from the administration. Now, with that in mind, is it possible that they have some of the members wrong? I would suggest that you give on this point and admit that there is no proof of who the hijackers were, and if they had no tickets, then how did they get on?
The bottom line is that there are many loose ends that are still in question. If you want to "have faith" and believe your faultless leader, then I wonder why you are in the news business. You've lost your ability to question and wonder about the truth.
But, I realize, that you are probably being paid for your unthinking remarks on this blog, as many neocon reporters and bloggers have been discovered are just paid operatives of the bad guys taking over our country. You slam those who are asking the questions instead of looking to see if the questions are valid. I submit that many of the questions are indeed valid. You may not agree with the results, and then the defense is to attack the question as being invalid. Or worse yet, to attack the questioner as being somehow siding with the terrorists.
Instead, I would assert that you are siding with the terrorists by being unwilling to look into who actually was behind the 9/11 disaster, and taking the list of terrorists that the govt has already admitted is only a guess.
RCL
--RCL
You're invited!
Readers of the HoyStory blogsite can attend the upcoming film:
"The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress"
I'm sure you'll enjoy it. It's true, Tom Delay is indicted for breaking Texas law by laundering contributions from soft to hard and then "buying" the races in Texas, and then redistricting into absurd districts so that Texas wound up with 5 additional republican representatives, and giving Bush his "Political Capital". Delay is typical of the neocons of today who will break the laws to get their way. Is there nothing that they won't do to execute their power-grab agenda? It looks like the answer is "no," including possibly 9/11.
And, BTW, no one is saying that Bush came up with the plan for 9/11. That only gets a round of laughter. He is only a pawn in a much larger machine, a machine that unfortunately, Mr. Hoy is unwittingly also a pawn.
RCL,
Come and join us in the real world.
I guess you mean the world of unquestioning "ditto heads" who find even asking questions unpatriotic? Count me out. The "proof" that there is nothing to the 9/11 truth inquiry cited here was the Popular Science article, published long before there was clear evidence that Bush & Co. took us to war based on lies. The Downing St. Memo smoking gun was not revealed until after that article. Sure, if you assume that Bush is only a C+ student, and not a crook, you might buy that line.
Plus, that magazine is run by Hearst Communications, another corporate tool of the administration, along with Hoy's own paper, the UT.
Kirt, are you ready to take any story they give you, hook, line, and sinker? Is there anything you won't believe?
Hoy uses the "slippery slope" argument, stating that we should be ready to air completely whacko stuff. After the 9/11 truth group was aired on C-SPAN, it became our responsibility as truth seekers to at least watch the film.
Have you seen it, or are you speaking from "real world" ignorance?