Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
While I can agree on invasion and violation of human rights, I'll need to actually see convincing evidence re 9/11. So far I've seen none.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 06:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, no offense Jerome, but if you haven't seen evidence that points to a much wider conspiracy, then you're just not looking (or don't want to look).

I'm not going to go through a laundry list of details, but if you're intellectually honest you can look at the work of Paul Thomson, David Ray Griffin, Stephen Jones, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michael Rupert, or any of the other credible researchers who have compiled evidence of the 9-11 attacks.

Or you can believe the 9-11 Commission. Either way.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 05:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no offense Jerome, but if you haven't seen evidence ... then you're just not looking (or don't want to look)...  if you're intellectually honest...

No offence? That is in fact an offensive way of making whatever point it is you want to make (I suppose, that the evidence for a 9-11 conspiracy is overwheming). You presuppose intellectual dishonesty in someone who isn't of your opinion.

You know, if you're right, Prof, you don't need innuendo to back up your argument.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 07:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not about being "right" or "wrong," it's about having the intellectual honesty to consider all the evidence. Here we are five years later, there is a plethora of scholars, professionals, engineers and academics working on these issues, the ideas are freely circulated all over the Internet, and yet they are often dismissed with one-liners of "absurdity" or "incredulity." While I don't agree with wild conspiracy theories, it IS intellectually dishonest to say we were given the complete truth about 9-11.

This does nothing to refute the points, but simply dismisses them without addressing anything. I don't know why that seems to be so offensive.

This isn't meant to get off-topic, but it's part of a much larger prima facie case against the Bush administration.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:27:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aside from Afew's point, with which I concur, I do think the operative term was convincing evidence.

Never mind Popular Mechanics and all that.  I like comment #1158 re: Rosie O'Donnell.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:22:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, never mind the other 1500 comments.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:30:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And never mind the article they're attached to.  And never mind common sense.

The comment is from Taibbi's original column here.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well if you're a fan of common sense that would mean we're on the same page ... unless common sense tells you the laws of physics didn't apply on 9-11.

Btw Popular Mechanics doesn't address the molten metal found in large quantity, or many other details, and the editor of PM is Ben Chertoff, cousin of Mike Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. Guess that could be considered a conflict of interest. Also, they lost many of their contributors and editors when they started publishing this 9-11 "debunking," but I'm sure common sense tells you that's just all coincidence. And common sense also tells us to ignore all other sources of information.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 09:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From Benjamin Chertoff's website:

In case you're wondering, I AM NOT Michael Chertoff's cousin. IF we are related, it's so distant I can't figure out how. Nevertheless, I've never talked to him, never met him and nobody I know in my family has ever met him.

I assume that common sense tells you that he must be lying....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 09:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These sources would say otherwise:

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/05/ben-chertoff-michael-chertoff.html

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

And so here we are talking about Chertoff, instead of the research done by Thomson, Griffin, Tarpley, Zwicker, Jones, et al., who don't have any connections to the Bush administration. Bravo, bon détournement.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 10:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, I'm sorry, but did you even read your own link?  It directly contradicts your argument.  It's badly formatted, so I can see why someone who didn't read it terribly carefully might take it as supporting your argument, but it doesn't.

Here's a tip:  Perhaps a little more rigourous examination of one's sources might be in order if you're going to convince anyone of this stuff.

Anyway, you're the one who started talking about Chertoff's family, not me.  If you're going to complain about veering off course, perhaps you should make more of an effort to stay on the course yourself.

Regardless, it's interesting how people who can't challenge the actual research done by Popular Mechanics try to impugn it by "attacking" one of the researchers.

But hey, if you'd rather believe hearsay via a third-hand source regarding what his mother may or may not have said than the guy himself, I think perhaps it may be useless to appeal to your common sense.

Regardless, as your link so rightly pointed out, "The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved."

But, um, judging it on its merits doesn't work out so well for the conspiracists, so never mind.

Look, I have no interest in re-examining the so-called "research" of your stable of conspiracy theorists for the 857th time.  Consider it considered and soundly rejected; I have found none of it convincing in the slightest, and much of it so astonishingly ignorant and unsupported that it really ought to be embarrassing for its proponents.  But go ahead, call me a Bush apologist because I don't agree with you.  Very effective rhetorical tool, that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 12:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, you're obviously dealing with some cognitive dissonance issues ... and I can't help you with that.

There's so much information available at sites like 9-11 blogger have tons of information from a variety of academic and professional sources.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 06:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your troll rating of me in this thread just illustrates how weak your arguments are.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 07:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, physics, conservation of momentum, the theory of gravity ... those are all REAL weak arguments. Let's just continue to talk about Popular Mechanics (which does many military-linked stories and has ties to the DoD), instead of anything else.

I've listed multiple sources, including those "opposed," and scholars, and you've used one which has deep ties to the DoD, and you're calling my argument weak?

That to me is the epitomy of intellectual dishonesty.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here we go with the name-calling again.  Does that make you feel better about not actually making any serious points?

You. Have. Made. No. Arguments. Here.

Maybe you actually have an argument.  I have no way of knowing that.  You've simply linked to a handful of websites that can't even agree amongst themselves about What Really Happened and that spend more time debunking and deconstructing each other than they do trying to present a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence of whatever they feel might actually have happened on That Day.  Oh, and besides that, you've insulted me, Jerome and everyone else on the planet who might have the gall "intellectual dishonesty" to disagree with you.

Call me as many names as you want, but you're not strengthening your "case" one iota; in fact, thus far you haven't made a case for yourself at all, and calling me all the names in the world isn't going to add up to a coherent argument.

But sure, let's keep talking about me and all the things you think I am, rather than anything of substance.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 10:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you're welcome to have an honest debate
here
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to see you, beyond unpleasant comments about intellectual honesty and cognitive dissonance, abusing the ratings system by giving the stormy present a 1 for her previous comment.

You should take a look at the New User Guide on the subject of ratings, where it's clearly explained that troll ratings are not to be used to express disagreement with another's opinions.

The rating has been wiped. Please don't abuse ratings again.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 08:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't trolling deliberately hijacking a conversation and sidebarring the issue? I brought up scholars and academics here advancing real arguments and theories, and I get called a "conspiracist" for simply suggesting that the American government lied about the 9-11 attacks?

I think that troll rating was deserved. Sorry you disagree.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I shall just take it upon myself to write some diaries on this topic then, if evidence seems elusive, because it is there. Obviously these issues make some people uncomfortable, so unless the topic is simply "banned," it should be a fair discussion.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you think you have decent evidence, and make an attempt at providing it, you'll be given a fair hearing. But be ready to be met with skepticism and critical counter-arguments.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 10:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have just done that
here
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:43:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series