Conspiranoiacs get Reaganoid champion
As we've recently noted, nothing makes the 9-11 "skeptics" (who are actually among the most gullible people in the world) giddier than a whiff of vindication from The Establishment. Pretty ironic, given that their entire world view is predicated on the assumption of a monolithic and omnipotent Conspiracy. This time it's Paul Craig Roberts, a supply-side wonk from the Reagan Treasury Department. What the 9-11 conspiranoiacs (as we prefer to call them) don't get is that The Establishment is no less likely than any other cross-section of society to produce cranks and wackjobs. More likely, in fact. Especially the Reagan administration! James Watt, Alexander Haig, the Gipper himself—wackjobs on parade! Funnier still, while they are distributing Roberts' words to give themselves a sense of mainstream legitimacy, the medium that ran this piece of detritus, Arctic Beacon, states on its homepage that among the topics it seeks to explore is "the Alien Presence on Earth and UFO Phenomena."
Way to go, conspiranoiacs!
Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story; Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter'
A former high-ranking Republican official, also a well-respected author, tells the American people to stop listening to Bush administration lies about Iraqi war and claims the mainstream media will not publish anything he writes against Bush or his policies.
June 22, 2005By Greg Szymanski
A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now."
Paul Craig Roberts, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, has evolved over the years into a major Bush basher as well as neo con critic. Roberts said he hasn’t changed his political ideology or jumped from the Republican-conservative ship but "just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth."
He is another in the long list of "Republican faithful," including top-ranking government and military officials who have left or been pushed out Washington, since Bush’s neo con followers continue demonstrating a lack of desire and patience to compromise even with conservatives refusing "to toe the neo con line."
Expressing doubt about the government’s official version of 9/11but deferring detailed criticism to the experts, Roberts concerns come on the heels of recent criticism leveled by Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist in the Bush I administration.
Reynolds is the highest-ranking public official so far to step forward and criticize the government account of 9/11, calling the government story "bogus" and saying the WTC most likely fell from a controlled demolition.
Saying 9/11 is only a part of a mysterious but deadly neo- con puzzle, Roberts looked back at history for some answers
"They (neo cons) are making such fatalistic mistakes and are about as insane as Hitler and the Nazi Party when they invaded Russia in the dead of the winter," said Roberts who now, as a hobby, syndicates a national newspaper column, adding to his long and impressive list of academic, journalistic and political credentials.
Serving under President Reagan in 1981-82, Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with having a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. He was then awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy."
Blah blah blah.
Your disparaging words are not appreciated by this reader...
Bill,
conspiranoiacs???!
I would really like to invite you to realise that real outlandish conspiracy theory is the state sponsored story. The evidence of the coverup, and the most likely "made it happen on purpose" (mihop) as disappointing / horrifying as they are... are just the only logical conclusions.
If you have read David Ray Griffin's books, and have taken time to form your opinions about why the government isn't lying, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
If you believe in honest govt, you would do well to rethink your words.
Don't sound like that
It is just such unsatirical hyperbole that I think is going to get the worse response possible from WW4, at least its blogmeisters. From what I gather, that' the fundamental problem. They basically seem jaded. People who hold a certain kind of view are basically profilable, in 99 cases out of a hundred, and those that go in one file usually file lemminglike into any other, and cause any manner of mischief just so long as they can hold on to their conspiranoiicism. Eventually, it's just not worth dealing with those people. Take somebody like Gregory Elich. I've read his work, and it seems to me that he's clearly a smart guy. But he's become absolutely myopic, to the point where he's an apologist for Slobodan Milosevic and Robert Mugabe. I wouldn't want to have to deal with that either. Or take Mike Ruppert, who links to the ludicrous OilEmpire.us out of frustration at those who are not interested in hearing from someone who, in addition to having brilliant insights, encourages us to stock up on precious metals, I guess so we'll at least have something shiny to accuse the Mosad of stealing after the world collapses because now we only have coal to burn. I think you understand the underlying thought process well, and probably all of this is obvious, but I am sick and tired of the imbeciles (and I'm not saying you're one of them) who don't seem to understand that Bill is not a capitalist because he likes the Drug Policy Alliance and opposes the rampant reactionary regimes in the Balkans; that he is not an anti-Palestinian genocidal maniac because he doesn't think the Mosad was stupid enough to kill George Hawi and understands that Israel is not wagging the United States; and he's not a Kool-Aid-drinking chip-implanted Bush-loving obviously Nazi-sympathizing Albanian-drug-ring-loving closet-neoliberal ignoramus because he plays gadfly to our struggle. If the WW4ites don't have a broad enough knowledge on such an issue, it is because we have failed to engage them--your frustration with Bill's dismissal of your view (if it is indeed one; he impugns the "conspiranoiacs" and not 9/11 wonderers) is a microcoom of his with said conspiranoiacs' dismissal of the dialectical process of thinking. I agree with the essential premises held by Griffin, and I also agree with kamqute* or whoever that was that resistance movements are clearly bought out right and left; I have watched my fair share, only to see them "burn out", in his parlance, in terms of the ongoing effectiveness they could have had, and will not regain for years because of the unstoppered pressure. But revolutions are coopted by other forces than global capitalism and it's retarded fanclub; it is bought out by anti-environmentalists like Chavez and chauvinists like Evo Morales. And the process of our thinking, the purity of our motives, and the time for us to analyze are more important than the benefits of knowledge that may arise from the gamble of listening to one who sounds like a "conspiranoiac"--if I'm misreading this, WW4ites, please tell me.
*Is that a cross between kumquat and kakute?
Misreading?
That was quite a dense mouthful (some paragraph breaks would be helpful), but if you think we are defending critical thinking against kneejerk dogmatism, then no, you are not misreading us. But I don't get why you think Hugo Chavez is an "anti-environmentalist" (is that a reference to his recent empty bluster about building nuke plants?) or Evo Morales is a "chauvinist" (by the standards of Bolivian indigenous ethno-nationalism, he is a moderate).
Your gullibility is not appreciated by this blogger...
Did I ever say the government isn't lying? Does the fact that David Ray Griffin is a snake-oil salesman mean that the government isn't lying? That's a pretty absurd conclusion.
I call you guys conspiranoiacs because I consider myself a real "9-11 skeptic"—I am skeptical of the government as well as charlatans like Griffin and Ruppert. I am a single-standard skeptic, which is, of course, the only genuine kind. If all your skepticism is reserved for one party, you aren't a skeptic at all—you're a dupe.
I know this is terribly unfashionable of me, but I think Chip Berlet does a masterful job of cutting Griffin down to size.
Do I "believe in honest government"? I would no sooner believe in space aliens. Talk about gullibility!
Griffins counterargument?
It seems as if you haven't read Griffins reply to the criticisms of Berlet. Or how can you otherwise conclude that Berlet "does a masterful job of cutting Griffin down to size"?
Likewise, I find your argumentum ad hominem not very convincing: "the fact that David Ray Griffin is a snake-oil salesman".
"Griffins"? Don't you believe in apostrophes?
I provided the link to Berlet's review to spare myself the effort of explaining why Griffin is a snake-oil salesman. He already did it, why should I waste my breath? Yes, I read Griffin's weak, shrill response (which, to his everlasting credit, Berlet links to on the page with his own review), so readers can check it out for themselves. Those who already have their minds made up will be "convinced" by Griffin. I can't do anything to help them. But don't assume I haven't read something just because it failed to convince me.
Chip Berlet's links
I just read Chip Berlet's review of Griffin's book, and read the information on the links given regarding analysis of the collapse of the towers. The first link directed to Engineering News-Record's article reporting on the analysis done by engineering firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. This one is fishy from the start, look at the hilarious animation of planes crashing into the towers in the article; the scale of the planes compared to the buildings is just a hair off, the planes appear to be gigantic. The study by Weidlinger also happened to be commissioned by Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC site, and yes the guy who said that WTC-7 was "pulled" on that PBS documentary (not a good choice of words buddy). The fact that their conclusions were based on computer models and video analysis doesn't say much either. Unfortunately, no engineering firms were ever able to analyze the physical evidence at ground zero because it was cleaned up so quickly, though it is interesting that photos taken during the cleanup show nice neat pieces of core columns just the right size for flat-bed trucks to take away (another sign of a well executed demolition). But the claim is that the columns whose fireproofing was knocked off by flying debris from the impact succumbed to the high temperatures of the fires ignited by the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel, and that smoke analysis in video of the collapse shows that columns failed first, not floor trusses. If only they analized the smoke coming from the fires in the towers before they collapsed...damn, they were thick, black, copious...sure signs of a choking low temperature fire, and have been estimated to be around 500-700 degrees fahrenheit. They admit in the second link to the NY State Institute for Basic Research report that the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel burned off in around 5 minutes, but we're somehow supposed to believe that office fires had sustained temps of 1800-2000 degrees. That is the ideal temp for kerosene to burn at, but the conditions inside the towers were anything but ideal. No collapse scenario has explained the virtually freefall speed of the collapses either. I've read info contrary to their notion that the 767 aircrafts that hit the towers was worse than what they were designed to withstand from a 707 also. I've yet to find enough evidence for scenarios for something other than a controlled demolition. There's lots more to refute these studies, but not enough room here.
Where did you get your engineering degree, Prof. Boogama?
I guess every structural engineer and forensic scientist in the country (the planet, for that matter) must be bought off by The Conspiracy. Otherwise there would be a clamor from the entire profession. Obviously I should trust the esteemed Prof. Boogama rather than peer-reviewed findings from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Sydney's Department of Civil Engineering, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (led by 9-11 survivors) or that notorious organ of Bush propaganda, the BBC. Thanks for setting us straight.
C'mon Bill
There's no need to be condescending brother Bill, but do you really read and scrutinize your holier than thou sources? Your first link to Thomas Eagar's errr rather quick analysis was done only a few short weeks after the attacks; Thomas Wilkinson's at U.Sydney was done errr...on the day of the attack, he surely had to have it down pat by then. Eagar's analysis doesn't even mention the very different impact damage and subsequent fires of WTC1 and WTC2. The BBC link quotes engineers saying that steel had melted...errr...when did they look at the evidence? This is at odds with FEMA's and NIST's info. The U.Sydney guy's info is at odds with FEMA, NIST, and Eagar's...he thinks the exterior columns of the buildings were what held them together, and that there was no masonry used in their constructions (errr, composite flooring w/concrete slabs, concrete surrounded central core columns?). Here, we can play link wars, the first one isn't always working though because of its transfer limit: http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/nova.htm
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523
Here's a letter from a man who was subsequently fired from Underwriters Laboratory, the company that certified the steel for the WTC buildings.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1019
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1022
And this last one is from a hilarious conspiracy nut site, but sadly the info in their mock trial is more thorough and interesting than anything you've put up, it covers the same material, but goes a bit farther: http://69.28.73.17/911ontrial.doc/911ontrialindex.html
"Errr"? Well said, Prof. Boogama
Dude, those are all "conspiracy nut sites"! I take what I read on a Dr. Bronner's soap bottle more seriously than GlobalResearch. Once again, you are dodging the point. I posted links from MIT and NIST; you posted links from the professional conspiranoia set. Why should I believe you? If the evidence suggests those buildings were brought down by anything other than being hit by airplanes, why aren't the entire professions of forensic science and structural engineering up in arms about it? Everyone in the world except GlobalResearch and INN is bought off by The Conspiracy?
If there is any cover-up here, it is for the Rockefellers and the Port Authority, who cut corners on the WTC's structural integrity in order to maximize office space. This is something that responsible professionals are pointing out (http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_10172002.html). It is also a cover-up that you and your fellow conspiranoiacs are utterly (if paradoxically) complicit with by harping on the absurd theory of pre-placed explosives.
But this is getting old. I've learned the hard way that your kind are impervious to logic.
aliens
Why hasn't anyone made the obvious connection -- aliens trained by the Mossad took out the WTC with UFO's.
Go Back to Sleep!
With revelations of London Underground bombing drills occuring at the same time as the real bombings on July 7th, we've gone from the realm of fantastic, to the realm of absurd. Blatently obvious, since terrorist attacks over and over are producing the SAME EXACT SCENARIO, that people in the inteligence community are providing operational cover for the actual attacks.
Patsies can be managed, even unwitting accomplices, but coincidences of this magnitude DO NOT AND CANNOT HAPPEN!
ITN News in London, interviewing the managing director of Visor Consultants, the group running bombing exercises in the London Underground at the EXACT SAME time as the real attacks(video).
The ASSOCIATED PRESS story about a CIA/NORAD war game scenario of hijacked jets wrecking into the world trade center and pentagon at 8:30 in the morning on 9/11, while the EXACT SAME THING WAS HAPPENING IN REAL TIME! It should be noted that the FAA was reporting at least 11 hijacked jets that morning. The war game served it's purpose. Well meaning air traffic controllers could not direct fighter aircraft where to engage the real hijakced jets, because they were confused about which blips on the radar were actual jets and which were part of the CIA/NORAD war game.
The LONDON TELEGRAPH reports on Vladimir Putin's FSB getting caught planting bombs in apartment buildings in 1999, but then claiming it was only a DRILL!
Now do you see the importance of drills? When they get caught red handed, they pull out their credentials, praise you for your vigilance and reward you with a big screen TV.
It's also interesting to note, that FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) had a presidential succession exercise scheduled to take place the day after president Reagan was shot on March 30th, 1980
Yeah, vice-president George Herbert Walker Bush was friends and business partners with the assassin John Hinckley's father. Yeah he's good friends with Shafig Bin Laden too. It's just all a big coincidence. Go back to sleep!
Go back to sleep yourself, and learn how to read
We have dealt with the claims about Visor Consultants elsewhere. But it seems that not only can conspiranoiacs not spell ("blatently" "inteligence" "occuring"), they can't even read. The AP story you link to says nothing about a CIA/NORAD drill involving hijacked jets wrecking the WTC and Pentagon. It's about the National Reconnaissance Office conducting a drill about such a scenario at their own offices in Chantilly, VA. But, hey, close enough in the wacky world of conspiranoia!
This is how the game always works. Conspiranoiacs take an element of truth and distort it in the retelling (hoping nobody will notice), until, as in a game of "telephone," something indeed fantastic—that is, pure fantasy—is arrived at. This fantasy is then defended dogmatically as "blatently" obvious truth, and anyone who dissents is attacked as being "asleep."
You guys are pathetic.