Friday, September 22, 2006

You can't get into heaven.

Here's something I came across. Enjoy.

Second email to

This addresses what I consider sophomoric "analysis" on the page:


The real answer is who the fuck knows? Not you or me.

Here is some speculation:

They wanted it all. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and then some. You don't go straight for Saddam. You go for Afghanistan, the easiest one to invade and occupy, where bin Laden supposedly was. Blame the Taliban for harboring him. When they ask for proof that bin Laden did it, take that as harboring the 9/11 perpetrator and invade. Move on to the next easiest target, Iraq. Blame Saddam for ties to 9/11, but do it in a roundabout way. You've already got military in the area built up. You could build up even more all the while saying that war is the last resort. Invade and occupy Iraq. Now you've got Iran surrounded (in theory) with your military. The next step is to claim that Iran wants to destroy Israel with nukes just like you said Iraq would try to attack the US or Israel with bio and chemical weapons. Even though there is no real basis for attack, much of the population of the US would support it because by that time you have convinced them that Iran wants to rule the world (through Islam or some such bs) and that there is a global conflict involving Islam and the West (sounds crazy, but this is what's going on now). Invade Iran.

This could have been something like the plan. Of course, it didn't all work out so well and we probably won't get our trifecta, as in we won't invade Iran, because our military can't handle it, and Russia and China wouldn't stand for it.


They did. Remember?


Because Saddam could publicly defend himself. Also, there were too many people in the Pentagon and the CIA that knew full well that Saddam had nothing to do with it. They would come forward and the whole "master plan" (above) would be thrown into jeopardy. Besides, they wanted the whole pie. They knew if they blamed Saddam, people would be asking "Why the hell are we invading Afghanistan?"


Jesus Christ, take out Wall Street? Are you crazy? Why would "they" want to do that?


Again, feel free to debate any of this with me.

Shit! Bogger totally removed all the text between the <> marks. I guess I picked the wrong thing to wrap the quotes in. I'm not about to go back and find the crap I was anwsering. Sorry.

Email to

I sent an email to whomever runs the website It's really not a bad website, but it's far from good. He really needs to clean that thing up if he (or she) wants actual credibility.

Here's my email. Yeah, it's messy (and I put it here in case anyone else wants to have this debate).

The first part addresses some lameness in the FAQ of the site.

Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site?

>>Where can one comment on your website? Maybe you could open a comments section and if you're worried about flaming, you could moderate the comments. This would make your site a center of actual debate instead of simple info dissemination.

Q: Why don't you have anything on the pentagon?
A: Because this idea is so far out there even the conspiracy sites are debunking it. I offer links which go into that issue in detail. I'm more interested in the stories the conspiracy theorist are in agreement with.

>>Actually, there are many different conspiracy theories even regarding the WTC. Some are very ridiculous (no planes theory, pod theory) and other conspiracy theorists don't agree with them and attack them. Maybe you should bring up the pentagon.

Q: Most of your arguments seem to be straw man. Why do you attack arguments I'm not making?
A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who make it. (Read: logical fallacy) If the topic doesn't apply to you then just skip it and go on to the next.

>>You should address as many different arguments as you can if you want real credibility. And you do, in fact, have many strawman arguments on your site. You don't have to agree with one side or the other to recognize a strawman.

I'd like to specifically address your page:

This is an example of a strawman. People like Alex Jones don't say that it is impossible for Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. They say is it impossible for Arabs, or any foreigners, to confuse NORAD with multiple terror drills and make them "stand down" (as he puts it) on the very day they plan to attack. Alex Jones doesn't ever mention that these war games and simulations aren't closely guarded secrets (neither does anyone trying to debate Jones's and others' points, including Popular Mechanics and your site, which always makes me scratch my head). Just go to to see listings of many war games and terror drills planned for the near future. It's pretty easy to find out about these things and it would have been obvious to plan multiple hijackings for a day on which multiple hijacking simulations and distracting war games were to be carried out. Also, the 7/7 bombings in London took place during a terror drill simulating that very situation, tube and bus bombings. It must be that the terrorists planned their attacks that day once they found out which day the drills would be held.

If you could address this argument this way, it would be much stronger, instead of focussing on Osama bin Laden, since there is no actual physical evidence linking him to 9/11. (I never understood why everyone focusses on bin Laden and not on the man who actually masterminded the plan, KSM, and whom we have in custody. You hardly hear about him, at least not 1% as much as you hear about OBL.) His "confession" right before the elections could be many things. He is in Bush's rolodex, like many CT say, or he is taking credit for something that he didn't do to gain advantage and to make empty threats. And read the words of the "confession" very carefully and critically. Does he ever really confess? Not really. It came to his mind? Well, it came to everyone's mind after it happened. Even US intellgence puts the mastermind of the attack not as bin Laden, who they claim is a financier, but as KSM and Atta, based on plans by Yousef. "They pointed out that AQ spent..."
doesn't mean they actually did spend anything. Anyway, you'll never convince people with a confession from bin Laden as long as CTs say that bin Laden is part of the conspiracy as a boogie man anyway.

on this page:

why do you keep referring to people who don't come forward and then add "and they are even liberals and centrists." What does that have to do with anything?

This is yet another strawman anyway, I'm afraid. The CTs don't say that all these people are in on the conspiracy. They say (a) most of them were fooled too (b) there are a few 'brave' people here and there coming out of the woodwork. There are people in the Pentagon who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Karen Kwiatkowski). There are people in the CIA who have called for an investigation, after they resigned (i.e. Ray McGovern). There are many of the widows and family of the victims who are calling for a full independent investigation. They don't dismiss complicit elements within our government either. Also, don't you think it's odd that 'all' the steel got shipped off and sold? Don't you think that years and millions SHOULD be spent investigating the steel and everything about the collapse of the buildings. You say NIST is studying computer models. Why aren't they studying every scrap of steel from the buildings themselves. Ask yourself that.

Why is ironic that Bloomberg is a Republican?

And get Noam Chomsky's name right. If you are a flaming liberal like you say, you should know your gatekeepers' names.

If you want to be taken seriously clear up all the bad typos and some sentences that don't even make sense. Example: "In some ones need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest they may forget an important fact." What?

Keep it up, but try to be more convincing. Just to let you know, I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I don't buy controlled demolition. But, since I have no way of knowing, I can't discount LIHOP, especially after reading the "new Pearl Harbor" language in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It's just too convenient. The real reason CTs flourish is that parts of the govt are so secretive and can't or won't explain certain aspects and events of that day.

Thank you.

Check out the site. If you would like to debate or discuss points in my email thingie, or any part of the 9/11 conspiracy debate, please do.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The #1 sign that the GWOT is a load of shit

Chertoff says that protecting ports and railroads is “More Safety Than We Can Afford.”

U.S. Can’t Protect All Targets, Chertoff Says

What a load of shit. They can spend waste hundreds of billions in Iraq for all their crony friends, but they can't spend money on equipment that would actually increase safety here at home. Do you know why? Because Chertoff knows that the threat of terrorism here at home is bogus, therefore actual safety measures are pointless. Billions have to go into the hands of defense contractors and oil infrastructure contractors, not to companies that don't have the right connections in Washington, not to companies that can't turn right around and donate tons of that war profit to campaigning incumbents.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Alex Jones's Terrorstorm

Here is the video (fer free) of Alex Jones's latest opus, Terrorstorm.

Honestly I had hoped for more. I was under the impression that there would be detailed historical analysis of false flag and black operations, but it was more cursory than I would have liked. I did like the treatment of the 7/7 bombings. This was all new to me since in the US, we don't really give a shit about them (collectively speaking, of course). I didn't realize that the connection to MI-5 was so well documented. I was very disappointed in the last half of the flick because it's just plain masturbation. He brings out some of the 9/11 Scholars clique and mentions all the people he's mentioned a million times, and then just plays clips of Charlie Sheen and himself on CNN and Jimmy Kimmel. That was sad. Summary: first half - good (could have been better), second half - crap. Enjoy.

This is for all you suckers voters out there,,1866780,00.html

The myth of fair elections in America

The debacle surrounding the Republican victory in 2000 demonstrated to the world that America's electoral process is wide open to abuse. But as Paul Harris discovers, the system has actually worsened since then.

Damn, Afghanis are ruthless

First they whack the guy.

Afghan Governor Assassinated in Suicide Bombing

A suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his body assassinated a popular governor in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, two days after a powerful car bombing killed 16 people, including two U.S. soldiers, in downtown Kabul, the capital.

Hakim Taniwal, 63, the scholarly and soft-voiced governor of Paktia province, was a close confidant of President Hamid Karzai and a political figure known for his skill at bringing together hostile groups in the country's volatile tribal regions near the Pakistani border.

Then they bomb his funeral.

Afghan governor's funeral bombed; 6 dead

A suicide bomber struck Monday at a funeral for a provincial governor assassinated by the Taliban a day earlier, and four senior members of the government at the service escaped unhurt, officials and witnesses said. At least six people were killed and dozens were wounded.

Now, I don't think even the Mafia would go that far.
Dat ruefless, dog.

Bush: War Criminal

Bush administration quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority--perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all "anti-terrorism" package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
So, I don't understand why the Dems aren't making a big media stink about this. Maybe they want to commit war crimes in the future if they ever come to power.

Sleep with the Armor of God