Humint Events Online: The National 9/11 Debate

Sunday, May 28, 2006

The National 9/11 Debate

posted by spooked at 5:14 PM

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow i can't think of a more fitting target for a terrorist attack than this upcoming 911 debate.

8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most important aspect of this you choose to ignore is that your "various high-profile skeptics" are such only in your mind and the minds of the wacked-out moonbat left. Why should the government "debate" people who have absolutely no capability of objective reasoning? Your "skeptics" have one agenda and only one - to prove that "anything" the government says is false - irregardless of logic or facts or even common sense. Your "skeptics" use disinformation, selective use of information (like you and your media use), quotes or data taken out of context, fanciful imaginations, outright denials along the lines of "black is white" and "the government says the sun rises in the east - the government lies all the time - therefore they lie about the sun rising in the east" approaches.

I applaud the government's refusal to participate in such a dog and pony show - I just wish they'd not have to be so diplomatic in their refusals. I'd toss in a "HELL no we won't give those lunatics a forum!" comment.

If they did participate, every other crackpot conspiracy theory from chemtrails to Elvis is still alive would demand equal time, and yes, I do believe your "skeptics" should be lumped in there with those. Not exactly a good spending of their time, in my opinion.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Methinks, as usual, you don't understand the post. The "various high-profile skeptics" are those on YOUR side who are listed in the referenced article, to wit Berg, Fetzer , Griffin, Jones, Nelson, Reynolds and Wood.

Quite the august group you have there.

Nelson, the "trained aircraft accident investigator", is an advocate of the "Pod" theory. Great!

I have no idea why Wood is on there - I cannot find a single study/comment/idea/post/original thought/statement/etc regarding this whole circus, but why let established credentials muck up a good team?

We already know about Jones and his "study" that is more conjecture than serious analysis, the fact notwithstanding that peer review for said "study" has been nonexistent.

Reynolds? Please. You seem to enjoy trotting out the "But Reynolds is a Republican!" meme. I have said *repeatedly* that political orientation means nothing when it comes to moonbats - there are plenty on the right just as there are plenty on the left. If the idiot espouses conservative/ republican ideas (i.e. lower taxes, strong military, engagement in the world, less government, etc), then great! He's a republican! Means absolutely nothing with regards to how much of a lunatic he is when it comes to what happened on Sept. 11.

Griffin and Fetzer - could someone please explain to me why being a philosophy professor is now considered expert experience on the dynamics of Sept 11? Perhaps I missed that memo.

Berg seems to be not much more than a darling of the moonbat left, even going as far as to try and get 3 supreme court justices disbarred for their decisions in Gore v Bush. He's not all there, though, for the left as evidenced by the comment from an article at Houston Indymedia: "Philip J. Berg is a suicide bus driver taking Mrs. Mariani's search
for the truth on a one-way trip to oblivion. - Carol Valentine"

Yeah....*great* bunch you guys lined up there!

lol

So tell me again why the government should "debate" this crew of wack-jobs?

6:27 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Pinch--
why should I waste my time with a govt shill and Bushbot like you?

11:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger