Clinton officials protest 9/11 TV series

[brien]

Quote by: italiangm Definition of elite - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

And your point?

[italiangm]

Quote by: brien And your point?

Your use of 'elitist' in the context you provided is incorrect.

[Matt W]

Move on. Both of you.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Osborn F Enready]

ibm said: my reading was that he meant how much is internet different from tv in terms of reliability of information. no?

I say:
The information is as reliable as the individuals persistence and variety in the search they perform.

Example:

Joe Sixpack who watches corporate media, gets the facts released by the "official sources" along with the "hosts" or the "corporate" viewpoints, talking points.

Joe Twelvepack who gets his news from the internet can go to "the original source" of the news, as well as any secondary, tertiary or latter source, as well as ANY op-ed from ANY network news source, as well as private and inependent sources such as universities, scholars, famous personalities, bloggers, partisan sources, etc.

Geee.... which is better?

Are you one who prefers LESS choice?

[ibm]

geez, osborn, what makes you think i'd prefer tv over the internet? i was telling my reading of another post. did i ever say i agreed or disagreed?

to get back to the point. imo the key is one's own mindset. you have to think independently, regardless of the information source, to be able to draw your own conclusion on matters. that, i hope i don't see any major disagreement b/w you and me.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ibm my reading was that he meant how much is internet different from tv in terms of reliability of information. no?

Exactly.

Quote by: brien And you don't participate in "Internet land? This is a typical hypocritical elitist attitude, Sonart.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, brien, by suggesting that, on general knowlege and current events, I'm probably as informed as anyone on this board. I attribute this to, for the most part, my two most reliable sources...

1. My morning newspaper. When I do search out stories or supporting details on the Internet, it's usually because of a story I recently read or remember reading, even years back, in the paper. Either that or TIME and Newsweek magazine, to which I subscribe.

2. NPR. I wake up to it and listen in bed as I drink coffee and read the paper. It's on in my car to and from work, and I stream it through my computer at work. I'm listening to The World right now, as I type this... an interview with J.C. Parks.

When I do source the Internet, I try to source -- as you may have noticed -- only reliable main-stream sources, unless it's some arcania I can't find anywhere but specialty sources.

I watch almost no television news, and if I do it's The News Hour on PBS, or flipping between MSNBC, Fox and CNN, although I generally find those 3 to be a wasteland of personality driven drivel. I never watch network news, unless I accidently stumble across a story that catches my attention as I'm channel surfing.

As incredibly comprehensive as the Internet is, it's no more discerning than television... meaning 90% of it is pure, unadulterated crap. I despise the whole blogosphere revolution as simply opinionated psuedo-journalism, appealing to their particular partisan base. That blogs occassionally uncover legitimate scoops only reinforces my "Las Vegas" theory of news, meaning only if the mainstream media picks it up -- if it "plays Vegas" -- will I accept that the story has been vetted by objective sources and found to be legitimate. No one seems the mention the amount of blogosphere bullshit that doesn't pass muster.

Quote by: Osborn Joe Twelvepack who gets his news from the internet can go to "the original source" of the news,

Right... like all you 9/11 conspiracists have gone to the "source"?

Quote by: Osborn The internet allows the INDIVIDUAL to do his OWN reporting,

Except the average individual doesn't have a clue about HOW to do their own reporting. Objectivity and fact checking, standard in the MSM, are non-existant concepts in a blogosphere where everyone tailors their OWN reporting to conform with some sort of personal agenda.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

ibm said: geez, osborn, what makes you think i'd prefer tv over the internet?

I say:
I don't, or at least, I didn't think I accused you of that, because I don't know what you prefer.

ibm said: i was telling my reading of another post. did i ever say i agreed or disagreed?

I say:
No sir, I was arguing the position, not making a personal accusation.

I apologize if it seemed personal. I am betting it was the word "you" and the way I used it, which I am often faulted for. I meant "you" as in "you" the reader, not you ibm.

For example, the sentence I said:

Are you one who prefers LESS choice?

I used all caps in the word "LESS", to show where my emphasis was in the sentence, and I used the word "you" trying to get the reader to ask "themselves" the question.

I apologize if I seemed accusatory.
(Fonceais criticism of my posting style is making me take a second look, and analyzing why I post the way I do. I do have some faults I am trying to work on.)

Sonart said: Right... like all you 9/11 conspiracists have gone to the "source"?

I say:
And yet again, the label comes out after 3 words, even though I have repeatedly stated time and again to you, I am not, I repeat NOT a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

You lay that label on anyone who doesn't buy, "hook-line-and-sinker" into the official story.

Because I think that a "bi-partisan" investigation wasn't thorough enough, that makes me a "conspiracy theorist"? I simply said, yet again, THERE SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT, NON-PARTISAN INVESTIGATION. <----- Notice, no exclamation point, because I am not yelling. I am showing EMPHASIS in hopes you will remember a word of what I said until your next post of accusations that I am a conspiracy theorist on 9-11's story.

Sonart said: Except the average individual doesn't have a clue about HOW to do their own reporting. Objectivity and fact checking, standard in the MSM, are non-existant concepts in a blogosphere where everyone tailors their OWN reporting to conform with some sort of personal agenda.

I say:
Well, it seems you "pigeonholed" me very easily(or without much thought), so it shouldn't suprise me that you think all others are inadequate in understanding truth when they see it, or knowing how to wipe their own nose.

So, do you feel people aren't deserving of the ability to research on their own?

[ibm]

no problem, osborn. now i understand. and i wasn't THAT upset.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn And yet again, the label comes out after 3 words, even though I have repeatedly stated time and again to you, I am not, I repeat NOT a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

Is that right?

--"Now, you may allude I am a conspiracy theorist, and that much is true. I have indeed done research, and compiled it into a theory made up of facts of corruption, arranged to show a "method" of which this corruption has been systematically, provably, progressively been pushed upon the American citizens, AGAINST their will, which amounts to a theory of conspiracy by those in power, over several administrations."-- Osborn F. Enready, May 29, 06

Quote by: Osborn Well, it seems you "pigeonholed" me very easily(or without much thought), so it shouldn't suprise me that you think all others are inadequate in understanding truth when they see it, or knowing how to wipe their own nose.

And again, in the heart of the Internet generation, Americans aged 18 to 24, when 1/3 of them, despite wall to wall coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq, can't find Lousiana, the Mississippi river or friggin' Iraq on a map... and Bush's job approval going up... yeah, I have a tough time believing that people won't believe any damn thing that appears on the Internet, especially what it's so chock full of sites telling people exactly what they want to hear.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for the quote Sonart.... which proves the point I STATED.

In the quote, do I state I am a 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORIST?

No. Actually, I define exactly what type of conspiracist I am, and what it is based on.

I am a confessed conspiracy theorist of our governments trail away from constitutional limitations, and have SEVERAL posts on just that topic.

BUT, that is not what you just labeled me, is it?

You labeled me a 9-11 conspiracist.

How many times have we argued that point Sonart? Will this make like #412?

Why do you fear an independent investigation of 9-11?

Perhaps you should stop making tinfoil hats, and looking for people to place them on?(regardless of how easy it makes you able to rationalize marginalizing the position, or how guiltless you feel when you ignore legitimate questions)

[Sonart]

.
Fine, Osborn, then why not simply state it outright... you do not believe that the U.S. government was directly involved in the attacks on 9/11, did not wire the Twin Towers for demolition, did not fly a cruise missile into the Pentagon, did not shoot down flight 93 and did not collude with bin Laden to launch the attacks.

But no, you play it both ways... never stating outright you think any of them happened yet constantly implying there's strong evidence that they did and it should be investigated.

You said..."In fact, the FACTS show that the government SCRUBBED the site, removed the material, didn't re-construct or re-analyze the ACTUAL MATERIAL for failures, and ORDERED THE MATERIAL SHIPPED OUT AND DESTROYED before it could be properly investigated."

This is patently FALSE! You say things like...

"That rieks of cover up. The conditions of collapse riek of cover up. The reaction by the President, National Air Security, and ALL levels of the chain of command ON THAT DAY riek of a cover up."

If you want an investigation into whether the government responded inadequetly, improperly, incompetently or suspiciously, be my guest. But if you want to imply that it's possible the government flew a cruise missile into the Pentagon and placed explosives in the Twin Towers, I'm sorry, but that's simply complete nonsense contradicted by the EVIDENCE! And if you want to imply collusion between our government and al-Qaeda to carry out those attacks, then again, it's simply paranoid bullsh!t, and I see absolutely no reason to spend zillions of dollars and man hours investigating every possible conspiracist fantasy -- was it space aliens? -- that's already been ruled out by the EVIDENCE.

You take great pleasure in listing government shenanigans that seem to imply their potential for such a conspiracy... "Would you believe that a CIA agent was president of a foreign nation WHILE BEING a CIA agent? How about that Osama took CIA training? How about that the military and CIA helped to smuggle drugs and guns to raise (untraceable) money to fund the Contras?... blah, blah, blah..."

I have no problem whatsoever believing any of those things, because when taken in the context of the Cold War they're perfectly plausible, run of the mill, pedestrian black bag cock-ups. The CIA training Osama? Hell yeah, why not... what's so insidious about helping some unknown Mujahadeen fighters defeat our most despised enemy, the Soviet Union? What crystal ball should we have had that suggested he would become what he became? The CIA managed to get one of their connections as president of a foreign country? Again, in the context of the Cold War, that's a major coup. Dirty pool? Sure, but in the context of the Cold War, entirely plausible. Involvement in drugs and gun running to finance Cold War efforts? Damnable, wrong headed and criminal, but certainly plausibe, and... more importantly, uncovered!

But conspire to kill possibly tens of thousands of Americans while destroying the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capital, just to justify invading Iraq, and without a single leak or shred of anything but circumstancial, speculative evidence for a plot that defies all reason or feasability?

That's not just a no, that's a hell no.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: Fine, Osborn, then why not simply state it outright... you do not believe that the U.S. government was directly involved in the attacks on 9/11, did not wire the Twin Towers for demolition, did not fly a cruise missile into the Pentagon, did not shoot down flight 93 and did not collude with bin Laden to launch the attacks.

I say:
I have never said I thought a cruise missile was fired at the Pentagon. On the rest of your points, I am still skeptical, therefore I have no "belief" formed, since I haven't had enough proof to form an opinion either way.

In my view there is plenty of "reason" to believe there may have been government complicity to "allow" if not "aid" the attack, but I don't alledge EITHER. I am skeptical, and would like to see more independent investigation.

Sonart said: But no, you play it both ways... never stating outright you think any of them happened yet constantly implying there's strong evidence that they did and it should be investigated.

I say:
Exactly correct. Remember how Reagan said "trust, but verify"?

My trust has been sharttered by Unconstitutional government.
That is why I now seek to verify, by independent, NON-partisan investigation.

Sonart said: You said..."In fact, the FACTS show that the government SCRUBBED the site, removed the material, didn't re-construct or re-analyze the ACTUAL MATERIAL for failures, and ORDERED THE MATERIAL SHIPPED OUT AND DESTROYED before it could be properly investigated."

I say:
Correct.

Sonart said: This is patently FALSE!

I say:
According to what YOU accept as evidence, explanation and official story. I am not quite so easily sold on what has been presented, and for good reason. "Puts and Calls" that were made in high volume concerning involved parties right before 9-11 were not addressed, and if they were addressed, I haven't seen the "official" findings that resolve it to my queries. The issue of national defense reaction, was addressed vaguely, and incompletely in my opinion. The issue of explosives being planted provides three essentials to the equation: Motive, Means, Ability and we have seen documented infinite opprotunity. I find the "official story" to be lacking in several areas of the collapse from a laymens perspective. I think real-time, physical testing is a real-world expectation in events as cataclysmic as this. Computer testing is very limited in some areas, and I think you, as well as I believe that if the designers and engineers could have forseen this type of event in any or all aspects, especially the fuel burning argument, then they would not have pushed on with the design as it was.

Overall, I am skeptical, and have legitimate documented reasons to doubt the words of both the current administration, and many agencies within the government, as well as past administrations, many of which made up the panel of investigators.

I have not made up my mind, and there are many like me, still today after 5 years. I would think if the parties involved were legitimate, honest and had nothing to hide they would be open, forthright and forthcoming with all information concerning the events in order to remove even the slightest doubt from actions taken prior to, during and after the events.

Sonart said: You say things like... "That rieks of cover up. The conditions of collapse riek of cover up. The reaction by the President, National Air Security, and ALL levels of the chain of command ON THAT DAY riek of a cover up."

I say:
Correct, I said that. That is my position of skepticism toward parts of the official story, because I have read extensively on past cover-ups, intelligence cooking, etc. and am developing a nose for BS detection.

As a citizen, I have every right to be skeptical where explanation falls short, as much as you have the right to be complacent to accept the explanation at face value.

Sonart said: If you want an investigation into whether the government responded inadequetly, improperly, incompetently or suspiciously, be my guest.

I say:
Why thank you, that is exactly what I want. An INDEPENDENT investigation, not another bi-partisan investigation.

Sonart said: But if you want to imply that it's possible the government flew a cruise missile into the Pentagon

I say:
Never said that, never alledged that.

Sonart said: and placed explosives in the Twin Towers, I'm sorry, but that's simply complete nonsense contradicted by the EVIDENCE!

I say:
I openly disagree, and demand more evidence as a citizen. The particles found in the dust clouds suggest otherwise, along with other evidence. This explanation needs to be given more than anything, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sonart said: And if you want to imply collusion between our government and al-Qaeda

I say:
Are you saying the U.S. government has never had any connection to Al-Qaeda?

Sonart said: to carry out those attacks, then again, it's simply paranoid bullsh!t, and I see absolutely no reason to spend zillions of dollars and man hours investigating every possible conspiracist fantasy -- was it space aliens? -- that's already been ruled out by the EVIDENCE.

I say:
Obviously, if we would have spent that money we are wasting in Iraq, on investigation and presentation of that investigations findings, we would all be better off all around the world.
Especially in this country. From a national collective perspective, that is what matters MOST, this country.

Sonart said: You take great pleasure in listing government shenanigans that seem to imply their potential for such a conspiracy... "Would you believe that a CIA agent was president of a foreign nation WHILE BEING a CIA agent? How about that Osama took CIA training? How about that the military and CIA helped to smuggle drugs and guns to raise (untraceable) money to fund the Contras?... blah, blah, blah..."

I say:
Correct, and all investigated, documented and recorded if people take the time to follow the leads.

Sonart said: I have no problem whatsoever believing any of those things, because when taken in the context of the Cold War they're perfectly plausible, run of the mill, pedestrian black bag cock-ups.

I say:
I think you are confusing "plausible" with "acceptable, excusable, permittable, allowable."

While it may have been plausible, it was not acceptable in any stretch of Constitutional thinking, which makes it unconstitutional.

Sonart said: The CIA training Osama? Hell yeah, why not... what's so insidious about helping some unknown Mujahadeen fighters defeat our most despised enemy, the Soviet Union?

I say:
Unknown? LOL Not even at that time, was Osamas family unknown.

Sonart said: What crystal ball should we have had that suggested he would become what he became?

I say:
Histories crystal ball. Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, all much like Afghanistan in relation to U.S. intervention, effects of intervention, and logically predictable outcomes of intervention. Panama, Nicragua, there were many similarities. The biggest fault is the argument of what constitutes "American Intrests" in relation to intervention, methods of intervention, and the peoples ACCESS to voice on the option of intervention, via Constitutional methods of declaring war, which is via CONGRESS, not the Executive. Two great books on the topics, "Overthrow, Americas century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq." by Stephen Kinzer, and "WAR POWERS, how the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution." by Peter Irons. Both very well written, well referenced, well reviewed books.

Sonart said: The CIA managed to get one of their connections as president of a foreign country? Again, in the context of the Cold War, that's a major coup. Dirty pool? Sure, but in the context of the Cold War, entirely plausible.

I say:
Again, the word plausible being used to soak up the meaning of "acceptable", as if to say, just, and not punishable.

Sonart said: Involvement in drugs and gun running to finance Cold War efforts? Damnable, wrong headed and criminal, but certainly plausibe, and... more importantly, uncovered!

I say:
Many tactics seem to be deemed "plausible"? Uncovered, for a moment in national media, and then relegated to the dust bins right next to "Crack Babies" and "Negro Marijuana Scourge" tapes, which reside right next to the tapes on the 1973 War Powers and Emergency Powers hearings. (wonder why they aren't talked about?)

Sonart said: But conspire to kill possibly tens of thousands of Americans while destroying the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Capital, just to justify invading Iraq,

I say:
I never said it was JUST to justify invading Iraq. I haven't alledged ANYTHING other than skepticism, a lack of trust in government based on evidence of past lies on both sides of the aisle. There are many things that 9-11 facillitated, mainly in my opinion, the rampant growth of the police-state ideals being exhibited at all levels of government.

Sonart said: and without a single leak or shred of anything but circumstancial, speculative evidence for a plot that defies all reason or feasability?

I say:
Not all reason, nor feaseability. You simply marginalize reasonable questions, realistic skeptical thinking, and a fact based littany of history of government lies and "false statements" as being unreasonable..... in this case. :rolleyes:

Sonart said: That's not just a no, that's a hell no.

I say:
For you, maybe. Not for me and many others out there, still skeptical and questioning, distrustful of government.

[Osborn F Enready]

As a taste of one own medicing Sonart.

Sonart said: "It's about time someone bonked corporate America, and the federal government, on the head and said, "Wake up!!!" If nothing else, hopefully it will wake up Americans."

That sounds very conspiratorial Sonart. Alledging Americans are "sleeping" intellectually, informationally. Referring to "corporate" America in the tone of collusion against logic, reason and or logical projections of their actions.

Do you reserve a tin-foil hat for yourself, or is that for opponents of your bias only?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Do you reserve a tin-foil hat for yourself, or is that for opponents of your bias only?

Easy now, I don't know if we have one in his size.



I suppose we could get Omar the Tent Maker to fashion him one up in no time though.


( Nothing personal, just couldn't resist the opportunity Sonart )

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Easy now, I don't know if we have one in his size.

I'll be sure to shape it like a Nazi helmet.... being a fascist and all.


.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn That sounds very conspiratorial Sonart. Alledging Americans are "sleeping" intellectually, informationally. Referring to "corporate" America in the tone of collusion against logic, reason and or logical projections of their actions. Do you reserve a tin-foil hat for yourself, or is that for opponents of your bias only?

Quote by: Osborn 1.) The Executive Seats ability to make war, which is CONSTITUTIONALLY granted to Congress, not the Executive. This alone is responsible for the last 14 wars of imperial corporate intrests.

My, speaking of tinfoil hats NIce how you try to make others look ridiculous while playing both sides of fence. I'm always a bit puzzled how those who worship at the alter of the Free Market can simultaneously be opposed to "corporate interests".

And yes, the energy and auto industry's apparent combined efforts to downplay the threat of global warming to protect their short-term profits is a defiance of "logic, reason and/or logical projections of their actions".

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: I'm always a bit puzzled how those who worship at the alter of the Free Market can simultaneously be opposed to "corporate interests".

I say:
I am not trying to fit under any label, which seems to be giving you the problem.

I am all for a free market, in this nation. I am all for a free market between nations who "view" individual rights, as we do nationally according to the Constitution.

There is no comparison between "free marketeers" and "corporatists".

I have spoken at length about my view of corporatism, and how it is becoming prevalent in America, as well as WHY it is becoming prevalent in America.

I am pro-private propeitors, anti-corporation. I have explained why many times.

You seem to be confused because I don't fit under any of your "pre-made" labels.

Sonart said: And yes, the energy and auto industry's apparent combined efforts to downplay the threat of global warming to protect their short-term profits is a defiance of "logic, reason and/or logical projections of their actions".

I say:
I don't dispute that at all. Corporations are ruining this nation, and the laws that allow them to do so need to be changed.

I don't support "de-regulation" of corporations. I do support de-regulation for individuals, propitors, small business.

Do you know the difference?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn Do you know the difference?

I just wanna know how my believing that powerful corporate interests - like those opposing Porp 87 in California - are colluding with Free Market advocates like the AEI, CEI, Cato, etc., and the current administration to actively confuse the American public, for their short-term interests, about the nature of a massive, long term threat mankind and much of life on earth means that I should be fitted for a tin-foil hat?

What, that seems implausible to you?

Quote by: Osborn There is no comparison between "free marketeers" and "corporatists".

What on earth makes you believe that the latter isn't a direct result of the former?

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: What, that seems implausible to you?

I say:
NO, but you label me a conspiracy theorist, so that shouldn't mean much to you, right?

Hence, my point. Many people would lump you under the same label.

Sonart said: What on earth makes you believe that the latter isn't a direct result of the former?

I say:
Well, the history of law in this nation REGARDING corporations. The facts.