Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
LP Convention 2008: Truth Be Told
I don't want to paint a picture of LP2008 as some sort of abnormal event: This is a hotly contested political brawl, complete with war rooms, platform fights, and other riveting stuff that's covered in a dispatch I'm finishing right now. But I just caught a truly bizarre and misbegotten event that had to be seen to be believed.
It's like this: Libertarians for Justice, a group that's urging all LP candidates to pledge to open a new 9/11 investigation, rented a spacious room for hours of 9/11 Truth events, including a screening of Improbable Collapse, a "scientific investigation" of the attacks. At 8:00 p.m. they invited presidential candidates who'd signed the pledge to take questions from an audience of around 60 people.
How big is a 60-person crowd at the LP convention? Small, when you consider that Barr, Gravel, Root, Ruwart and (yes!) Imperato met dozens of people one-on-one with just a little time in the exhibit hall. Smaller when you realize that several people in the event weren't LP delegates, just 9/11 Truth advocates. Nonetheless, Ruwart and Gravel spent at least 90 minutes engaging in the Q&A alongside Michael Jingozian, Steve Kubby, and Alden Link. The event took a Lynchian turn when uber-fringe candidate John Finan took the mike, made fun of the audience, and refused to sign the pledge when it was dangled in his face. "Whaddya think?" he asked the crowd. "Should I sign something I've just seen for the first time?" Almost everyone roarded "yes," including Kubby, who was a few feet away from me. Finan refused and walked away with the sharpie the moderator had given to him to sign with; he was pursued out of the room and trotted back to the elevator. Finan did the impossible: Looking like the craziest man in the room at a Truther event.
I'm no purge junkie, but LP candidates have no business indulging the Truth crowd like this.
libertarian|5.23.08 @ 12:07AM|#
You're a purge junkie. It's a simple document calling for more transparency. No libertarian should have a problem with government transparency. Why get your panties in a knot?
The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.08 @ 12:10AM|#
The event took a Lynchian turn when....
speaking of turns, nice turn of the phrase.
Couldn't agree more about the truthers. Not saying to purge 'em,
just don't indulge them.
But, to be fair, there are more truthers around than you might
think. I know a guy who is a hard core Rush Luvin conservative
Republican who is convinced that 09-11 was an inside job.
Chris|5.23.08 @ 12:11AM|#
Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".
Colin|5.23.08 @ 12:16AM|#
I'm gonna draw the line when it comes to voting for a truther. Even if that means voting for Baldwin.
|5.23.08 @ 12:25AM|#
I don't expect a similar post about the nuts who seemingly
compose the entire Democratic Party, or the nuts who will lead the
cheers in the coming RNC. Get it? A platform of harmful
nonsense-economics and coercive social policy is 'reasonable'; the
neocon foreign policy is an adult one whose presence should not
seem ridiculous to us. A bunch of people who -- in a country
famed for getting into wars by manipulating its enemies --
omigod distrust the government? Whackos! Nuts! So
on-the-fringe that we should be ashamed to be in the same room as
them!
Pah. The Truthers ain't got nothing on the 'mainstream'
whackos.
Nephilium|5.23.08 @ 12:28AM|#
*sigh*
Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do anything
right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the
government can mastermind a great conspiracy?
Nephilium
tarran|5.23.08 @ 12:31AM|#
Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate towards
the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more
because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".
Short answer: they are attracted to a third party.
Longer answer: there are always people who have trouble functioning
in a society.
Some have trouble functioning because they have moral problems with
the actions required to succeed. Others because they are
nuts.
The nuts don't consider themselves to be nuts. rather they look for
a rationalization that explains why they cannot function - an
explanation that leaves the nuts' feelings of self esteem
intact.
Some join a cult. Others blame blacks or Catholics and join the
KKK. Some seek refuge in the military. Some join political
movements like communism, Fascism, or Libertarianism.
The Libertarian Party's message is seductive - government
interferes in so many aspects of our lives that a person can have
no problem coming up wiht an excuse as to how all their
failures are really the product of government interference.
In a libertarian society, many of these losers would still be
struggling. And, no doubt, many of them would be joining socialist
or nationalist movements.
Furthermore, sane people are driven away from joining parties like
the Libertarian party because the party is ineffective. For the
party to make an impact, supporters have to spend gobs of money and
invest many man-hours of their time. If, as normally happens, the
Libertarian has no impact on the election of concern, all that
money and effort will have gone to waste. So, a rational person
will generally choose to spend their money and time on satisfying
other wants. This of ccourse means that there are fewer sane people
to displace the loons.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.08 @ 12:33AM|#
Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do
anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the
government can mastermind a great conspiracy?
Or investigate one.
Thank you.
Secrets are pretty hard to keep. I mean, come on, everybody knows
who the boss is sleeping with, why does anyone think the government
would be able to pull off something like 9-11?
Pablo Escobar|5.23.08 @ 12:37AM|#
The government isn't smart enough to pull of something like
9/11. I mean, they can barely deliver the mail on time.
But it's worth opening up a new investigation into 9/11 so that
more heads roll. How many high level officials were sacked for the
intelligence failures that led to 9/11? In my count, approximately
0.
Btw Reason has no business telling libertarian presidential
candidates who they should or should not take questions from. We
all know the bullshit David and other reporters pulled over the Ron
Paul newsletters. Smearing is the name of Reason's game.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.23.08 @ 12:40AM|#
My father once said that the core of every political party is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the core.
|5.23.08 @ 12:41AM|#
Secrets are pretty hard to keep. I mean, come on, everybody
knows who the boss is sleeping with, why does anyone think the
government would be able to pull off something like
9-11?
Maybe the government has been doing a shitty job on purpose for the
last few decades as a charade so 9/11 looks improbable to those of
us who can't see through the government doing a shitty job was just
a fake.
Why?
That's why we need an investigation by the people who set it all
up.
Click \'n\' Learn|5.23.08 @ 12:50AM|#
Memo from our reality!
Thinking that AlGore piloted a UFOInto the towers:
nuts
Wanting a new, better 911Investigation: not
nuts
For comparison purposes:
95% of the LP platform: nuts
|5.23.08 @ 12:53AM|#
Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do
anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the
government can mastermind a great conspiracy?
I'm no Truther, but I don't think libertarianism necessarily says
that the govt can't do anything right. They've done a heck
of a job keeping 3rd parties off the map, keeping the drug war
going, keeping people unconcerned about inflation and the national
debt, etc. I think the libertarian belief is rather that govt is
less efficient at non-coercive things than private actors would
be.
stephen the goldberger|5.23.08 @ 12:54AM|#
Fuck the 9/11 truth report, where the investigation into whether
KATRINA WAS AN INSIDE JOB PERPETUATED BY THE CIA's SECRET WEATHER
MACHINE.
I know for a fact that CIA in accordance with ten homosexual jewish
bankers in Geneva have developed this machine and they used it to
design a hurricane to use on New Orleans in order to buy up cheap
real estate because they want a hideaway for their gay
orgies!!!!
WHY ARENT PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS
|5.23.08 @ 1:08AM|#
I was with you, Goldberger, until you said the Bush CIA was aligned with TEH GAY. Not a chance.
thoreau|5.23.08 @ 1:08AM|#
If the Bush administration had decided to plan 9/11, the towers would still be there, and the operation would be 7 years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
|5.23.08 @ 1:25AM|#
Libertarian Truthers are people who have simply decided that The Government is the single bogeyman behind everything. Some problems (public education, the mail not arriving on time, Waco) are explained by government ineptitude. Other problems (9/11, the Kennedy assassination, Waco) are explained by incredibly competent government conspiracy. It all makes sense to them because the government is the consistent bad guy.
|5.23.08 @ 1:25AM|#
I know for a fact that CIA in accordance with ten homosexual
jewish bankers in Geneva have developed this machine and they used
it to design a hurricane to use on New Orleans in order to buy up
cheap real estate because they want a hideaway for their gay
orgies!!!!
Thanks for reminding me of the nuttiest guy I've
come across on the web.
The scary thing isn't that someone this nutty can actually live,
it's that so many of the commenters think he's actually onto
something.
|5.23.08 @ 1:27AM|#
No administration that convinces 70% of our population and
sizeable chunks of the opposition party's leadership to go to war
with next to no evidence for their main justification should be
dismissed as incompetent.
Especially when they also managed to retain power after the whole
thing was exposed as a fraud. Let not misunderestimation be our
downfall.
|5.23.08 @ 1:29AM|#
Brian24,
I wouldn't put Waco in with those others...it doesn't require
nearly the conspiracy that 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination
would.
|5.23.08 @ 1:38AM|#
do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we
are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is
smaller/less "mainstream".
Truthers believe that the Powers That Be orchestrated 9/11, or at
least think there's a chance that it happened. Many would be
satisfied after a transparent investigation. They are attracted to
libertarianism because it's (typically) against such concentrated
powers.
Plus, since there are hardly any libertarians in office (or with
any power) it's obvious they had nothing to do with 9/11.
I don't self-identify as a "truther", but I would definitely like a
proper investigation into 9/11, and feel that there are too many
unanswered questions. Saying, "Duh! PLANES flew into the buildings,
that's why they fell down!" doesn't cut it.
alan|5.23.08 @ 2:13AM|#
Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do
anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the
government can mastermind a great conspiracy?
It is not about competency, it is about fire power. That they have.
Somehow, non libertarians go about their daily existence not
noticing the discrepancy between competence and power at all levels
of the State apparatus. You regard the Modern State as if it were
the background radiation of the Universe, something that just is,
and needs no further explanation, and not as the bizarre product of
historical circumstances that it is. Non-libertarians are all
lunatics.
As far as 9-11, the theory that veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war
came together and decided to extend their reach with terrorist
operations and 9-11 was one of those operations, well, actually
that works for me, and the evidence I'm aware of points that way,
so, until something better comes along, sure, I'll go along with
that, why not?
Fritz|5.23.08 @ 2:18AM|#
A good title for this whole thing is 2008: The Election That
Destroyed All Parties.
No? The Dems and the GOP tore themselves apart over the nominating
process, so why not suck in unelectable parties as well?
alan|5.23.08 @ 2:25AM|#
There are peripheral matters to 9-11 that I would like to see investigated. The Patriot Act being one of them. Obviously, between Oklahoma City and 9-11, bureaucrats in Federal law enforcement had been building a wish list of power grabs they were saving for an event like 9-11 to make such a necromantic document easy to pass through Congress. If we could see the e-mails, notes, and papers that went into the Patriot Act, the depth of cynicism on display by the ghouls that run Washington DC could be quite enlightening.
shecky|5.23.08 @ 2:34AM|#
No administration that convinces 70% of our population and sizeable
chunks of the opposition party's leadership to go to war with next
to no evidence for their main justification should be dismissed as
incompetent.
I dunno... I maintain that Americans were just itching to kick
someone's ass, pretty much anyone's ass, and weren't particularly
interested in asking questions, and Saddam's ass was one we knew
we'd beat. Even with his (nonexistent) WMDs. The administration was
simply lucky enough to milk that sentiment long enough to last
until 2004.
|5.23.08 @ 2:35AM|#
Don't tell us that the LP shouldn't be engaging the Truth folks like that. Tell us why/where the Truth folks are wrong. If the latter is persuasive, the former is unnecessary. If not, the Truthers should be engaged.
|5.23.08 @ 2:47AM|#
Tell us why/where the Truth folks are wrong.
Let's see... They're wrong on physics, logistics, motives, means,
opportunity, and every other element on which one builds a
case.
Did the government screw up on 9/11 and fail to stop the perps?
Yes. Did the government actively participate in the attack?
No.
-jcr
|5.23.08 @ 2:50AM|#
I maintain that Americans were just itching to kick
someone's ass, pretty much anyone's ass, and weren't particularly
interested in asking questions, and Saddam's ass was one we knew
we'd beat.
That's pretty much it.
I'm not going to shed any tears over Saddam or his sons getting
killed, but once they were accounted for there was no further
reason for our troops to be there. In a perfect world, they would
have been killed by Iraqis without the loss of thousands of
American soldiers' lives and a trillion dollars of our tax
money.
-jcr
|5.23.08 @ 2:51AM|#
I didn't see a Reason magazine booth in the exhibitors section
today. You guys have too many subscribers?
Weigel, the Phillies campaign is giving away some really good free
food up in their suite. I'm not voting for the guy ( and I'm a
physicist!) but I'll eat his free food and drink his beer.
Sam|5.23.08 @ 5:07AM|#
When the University of Chicago does an academic analysis and finds that the before there is evidence of unusual option market activity, I think any REASONable person would be suspicious: Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. One day the truther libel will disappear, if it does not then the country is doomed.
Sam|5.23.08 @ 5:38AM|#
They're wrong on physics, logistics, motives, means,
opportunity, and every other element on which one builds a
case.
The "argument" lacks teeth. The defense would read, they're not
wrong on the physics, logistics, motives, means, opportunity based
on the account of the defendant who has shown full-well criminal
behavior in executing an illegal war further killing over 3,000
citizens of the country in question, a million other global
citizens who had done nothing to warrant their deaths. Further the
defendant has tortured individuals and enacted legislation that
infringed on the rights of the citizens and disregarded the basic
tenants that he swore to hold up. Further the defended has likely
engaged in further criminal behavior through manipulating the
voting system twice to get himself elected. Allegedly the defendant
has shown down-right criminal behavior under the standards set by
the law and has destroyed the same laws he promised to uphold. The
defended had motives, means, and the opportunity those various
state apparatus to carry out such actions. Further, the defended
has ties to Authoritarian regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia
whose citizens were responsible for the event... or so the
prosecution alleges.
VM|5.23.08 @ 8:01AM|#
For your post, Sam, you win today's CHICK
MAGNET award.
thank you for playing.
tarran|5.23.08 @ 8:08AM|#
Sam,
No they are wrong on the physics. I used to work in the steel
industry, and the truther claims about the properties of steel are
flat out wrong.
Their claims about structural engineering are also wrong.
Their theories about demolition are so full of shit that I often
don't know where to start.
Their claims about the military capabilities of the U.S. government
are wrong.
Every truther theory (and they spin new ones at a bewildering rate)
requires massive conspiracies that communicate undetectably and
require people in aircraft and in the destroyed buildings to walk
around oblivious to people stringing up det cord and drilling into
columns.
Look, you have freedom of conscience. If you want to believe that
the Earth is flat, that is your right. But if the organizers of a
Geology conference invite you to give what amounts to a keynote
address, they are going to be mocked.
|5.23.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Smaller when you realize that several people in the event
weren't LP delegates, just 9/11 Truth advocates. Nonetheless,
Ruwart and Gravel spent at least 90 minutes engaging in the Q&A
alongside Michael Jingozian, Steve Kubby, and Alden
Link.
Hm, does anyone see a problem here? You have the "pure" candidates
spending their time listening to crazy crap, at a Libertarian
convention, with people who aren't even Libertarians. Mary
Ruwart couldn't make it out to reason's debate,
but she has an hour-and-a-half to blow listening to this
garbage?
|5.23.08 @ 8:34AM|#
The best part about this blog, Volokh, Cato, and other voices of
sanity is they consistently remind me that the whacko side of the
LP is in no way representative of the fundamental foundation of
libertarian thought.
The LP should have the courage to make a statement to the extent of
"We reject the premises promoted by groups such as Scholars for
9/11 Truth and Justice". Really, would it be so hard for them to
take a stand on this?
David Weigel|5.23.08 @ 8:39AM|#
Ayn_Randian - That's not really fair to Ruwart. She was a long plane trip away from the Reason event; she was in town for this.
|5.23.08 @ 8:48AM|#
She was a long plane trip away from the Reason event; she
was in town for this.
Conspiracy! She was held up by Federal agents! I want the truth to
be known!
robc|5.23.08 @ 8:51AM|#
Chris,
The answer to your 12:11 question is the latter. Both the Dems and
GOP have more nuts in absolute terms in their parties, they just
stand out less.
I made the same argument about Ron Paul supporters last year. This
time last year he was mainly supported by nuts and myself and a few
other sane people. As his movement grew, the % of nuts shrank.
|5.23.08 @ 8:54AM|#
I would like to know how three different buildings, each damaged in different ways, all managed to collapse in the exact same manner. No conspiracies, please, but it is curious. Demolition crews get paid big $$$ for controlled implosions, and yet these three buildings fell as neat as can be. Does this make me a truther?
|5.23.08 @ 9:00AM|#
I would like to know how three different buildings, each
damaged in different ways, all managed to collapse in the exact
same manner.
I don't remember the details of WTC5, but it is easily acceptable
that 1&2 pancaked from the top down. Haven't you seen the
recreations that show both the design of these buildings and the
effects of weakening all of the structural steel on the top
floors?
There's PLENTY of non-truther information regarding this issue,
from PLENTY of sources. If you're still asking this questions, it
means you simply haven't taken the time to look into it.
Kyle|5.23.08 @ 9:02AM|#
John-David,
Look, the buildings were impacted different ways, but stood for at
least 2 hours after impact. They all collapsed the same way because
there were no other forces acting on them at the time of collapse,
except for gravity.
Trust me, if it was an inside job, the buildings would have come
down immediately. What incentive would anyone have had to keep them
up for 2 hours.
|5.23.08 @ 9:04AM|#
1. The academic analysis "Sam" refers to was merely published by
the University of Chicago in its Journal of Business. The research
was conducted by a fellow at University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. (Let's keep our co-conspirators straight!)
2. The author makes reference to the people who might have engaged
in the option trading several times, listing only the torrorists or
their associates. No one else. (Pesky thing, that Occam's
razor.)
3. "One day the truther libel will disappear..." writes "Sam." If
by this he means that at some point the people promulgating
government 9/11 conspiracies will have truth stripped from any
descriptive term referring to them, I certainly agree.
|5.23.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Ayn_Randian - That's not really fair to Ruwart. She was a
long plane trip away from the Reason event; she was in town for
this.
Damn you Weigel....being all reasonable. (If I make a "For a
magazine called Reason, you're being eminently reasonable"...is
that a drink)
ok, perhaps I was a bit unfair. I'll just say that no sane person
has an excuse for spending 90 minutes at an LP convention talking
to crazies, most of whom aren't even LP Members or Delegates.
It's called revealed preferences...some of the
candidates would rather spend time with the kooks than winning the
nomination.
|5.23.08 @ 9:11AM|#
...and yet these three buildings fell as neat as can be.
Actually, not nearly as neatly as you seem to think. Debris rained
down for blocks around. Column sections up to six stories high fell
outward and away from the towers and damaged surrounding streets
and buildings.
Conspiracy theories rely on erroneous information like yours.
Taktix®|5.23.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Once again, and likely not for the last time, the Popular Mechanics report debunking the myths, written by a plethora of credible sources, not including Alex Jones or random people on YouTube...
svf|5.23.08 @ 9:14AM|#
yet another reason I'm praying to the Spaghetti Monster for a Bob Barr victory on Sunday...
Taktix®|5.23.08 @ 9:31AM|#
Also, some quick searching reveals:
Fire
Steel
A cigarette being drawn is hot enough to melt steel...
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Let's purge! I say we take a bunch of laxatives, do some enemas, and drink some ipecac syrup. We'll feel much better after the puking and shitting, because right now, I feel like puking and shitting after realizing the people who present the public face of libertarianism are fucking insane.
Steve|5.23.08 @ 9:44AM|#
My father once said that the core of every political party
is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason
the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the
core.
Your father sounds like a wise man.
tactical|5.23.08 @ 9:52AM|#
THe "plethora" of credible rtists @ Popular Mechanics was a guy who was editing ENtertainment Weekly" a year before, a kid writing abut high school sports for Pennsylvania newspapers, and Michael Chertoff's cousin.... that's the crack staff of engineering experts which Hearst brought on to run the magazine when they fired virtually the entire staff a few months before the article.
|5.23.08 @ 9:54AM|#
More physics. Some of the schools in China where many kids died
collapsed in the pancaking mode that downed the two WTC buildings.
No bombs--just bad structures and heavy shaking.
Second, the Truther's claims about steel's melting point is
irrelevant. Five years ago a historic Studebaker factory burned to
the ground about 200 yards from my office. I wandered around the
rubble a couple of days later (it was still smoking) and saw
large girders twisted like pretzels. No accelerant, no
demolition, just a very bad fire in an almost empty building.
I took pictures of the girders, just so I could answer these guys.
Here's a link to one:
Studebaker fire aftermath
and here's a description of the fire:
USA Today Article
|5.23.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Taktix,
I went there before posting. Nothing talking about all three
buildings fell in the exact same manner.
Kyle,
Thank you. I never gave any thought to the fact that since the
buildings didn't collapse instantly, they would of course be more
likely to fall straight down.
|5.23.08 @ 10:04AM|#
I was with you, Goldberger, until you said the Bush CIA was
aligned with TEH GAY. Not a chance.
Come on, the homophobia of the Bushreich is just a
smokescreen.
I wandered around the rubble a couple of days later (it was
still smoking) and saw large girders twisted like pretzels. No
accelerant, no demolition, just a very bad fire in an almost empty
building.
Like you could know that without applying expert Truther scientific
minds.
Trust me, if it was an inside job, the buildings would have
come down immediately. What incentive would anyone have had to keep
them up for 2 hours.
That just proves it was a government inside job - they can't even
blow up buildings right.
Seriously, you can do a Truther schtick with half your brain
watching
The defense would read, they're not wrong on the physics,
logistics, motives, means, opportunity based on the account of the
defendant who has shown full-well criminal behavior in executing an
illegal war
This gets my nomination for Non Sequitur of the Year. Even if you
grant the criminal behavior in executing an illegal war, that does
nothing whatsoever to address the physics, etc. problems with the
Truther allegations about 9/11.
Sam|5.23.08 @ 10:05AM|#
There are a number of different issues that we're dealing with
that first I might try to disambiguate. There are issues concerning
how the main towers came down and whether that was a demolition. A
lot of people claim that this is not the case and yet offer no
evidence of similar occurrence ever... and I could make a list
which can be
found here and there is plenty there that is unexplained to
pique your or any rational person's interests. All the naysayers
have really no arguments against many of those issues other than
they dogmatically "believe" the official story, as if not believing
it would shatter their world and they defend this dogma
vigorously.
As for the government, it has done similar things in the past such
as destroy the USS Liberty
and then cover up through executive order all the evidence against
the perpetrators or Operation
Gladio in which they targeted Italian and other European
citizens. Or better yet the government of the US paying Israel to
subject Shepardic Jewish kids to dangerous doses of nuclear
radiation in the 50s. Further, the Italian President who leaked
Operation Gladio had said flat out that this crime was perpetrated
by the authorities and involved Israel, so there is at least one
official that's willing to blow the official story off its
foundation.
Further, Al-Qaeda is itself a conspiracy theory not backed up by
any real evidence. All the supposed evidence has come from people
tried in military tribunals (and tortured) with none of the actual
evidence presented through civilian courts, which only gives more
credence to the argument that there is no real evidence other than
perhaps obtained through torture at which point the evidence may be
considered unreliable. The FBI further has no evidence against Bin
Laden to implicate him other than other bombings in other
countries. Also the passports found at the scene of the crime are
further ridiculous.
So believe what you want, in the end it is dogmatic belief because
we don't really know anything expect those in the position of
authority have told us and as demonstrated above, they are by no
means any sort of trustworthy source of information. All the
dogmatics who want to believe in the official story has labeled the
opposition as "Truthers" as a marketing term to discredit them, and
thus far have succeeded. They further dismiss any academic evidence
as "mere" something or rather, to simply be dismissed from the
discussion as if it's nothing.
Star Trek Truther|5.23.08 @ 10:20AM|#
If you do a physical anlysis of a Borg ship you can find traces
of Federation building materials. This is because the Ferengi
Acting Government (FAG) covertly uses the Borg to disrupt trading
routes and take over systems to their advantage and create
fear.
Phasers can't melt transparent aluminum! Look at the ruins of New
Providence and you can clearly see that planted photon torpedoes
were responsible. The Borg were just an excuse used by the FAG for
destroying New Providence and created the "menace" of the
Borg.
This allows the FAG, through Starfleet, to conduct military
operations that would never have been allowed under the Prime
Directive.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!
Kyle|5.23.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Ok, let's assume for a second that the government did execute
9/11...
Why not hit other cities as well? Why not create mass havoc in the
skies by taking over as many planes as possible and crashing them
into every major city? If you were really building up for war, why
not have the people so rallied for your cause that their can be no
question?
|5.23.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Ok, let's assume for a second that the government did
execute 9/11...
Let's not.
dhex|5.23.08 @ 10:37AM|#
better question: why not just blow the planes up on the tarmac?
three planes blown up at once = carte blanche minus some of the
economic destabilization caused by the wtc attacks.
also seems a lot cheaper and easier to pull off.
|5.23.08 @ 10:38AM|#
It's like this: Libertarians for Justice, a group that's
urging all LP candidates to pledge to open a new 9/11
investigation, rented a spacious room for hours of 9/11 Truth
events, including a screening of Improbable Collapse, a "scientific
investigation" of the attacks.
...
I'm no purge junkie, but LP candidates have no business indulging
the Truth crowd like this.
Why won't they go away? Why doesn't the LP just show them the
door?
zoot allures|5.23.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Good lord, "Sam."
If you want to ignore other posters' evidence and links that debuke
the Truthers -- and merely call it accepting the dogma -- then have
a good time on that planet of yours.
Yet, another thing that makes the whole conspiracy theory fall
apart is why were terrorists so bent on destroying the WTC towers
back in 1993 -- long before Bush II "concocted" this war -- and yet
failed.
I'm sure the Truthers have a convoluted reason for this. Let me
guess ... our gov't got the idea for 9-11 from the '93 bombing. Or
something like that, eh?
|5.23.08 @ 10:54AM|#
If you really want to know why the government is incapable of
this level of conspiracy, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038551445X/reasonmagazineA/
|5.23.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Everyone knows that buildings don't collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint without using demollition (you can time it yourself too). I really like the movie "September Clues" where they zoomed in on the visible explosions happening on the outside of the building. Finding the truth isn't about patriotism or politics. I wish more people could watch these movies and begin asking questions too. Someone's got a LOT of explaining to do.
J|5.23.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I think the assertion that government is incompetent as both a
necessity for libertarians to believe and as true is silly.
1. Libertarians can be libertarians because they want the
government out of their life, not because they think the only
reason government shouldn't interfere with their life is because it
doesn't interfere and do what it wants well.
2. I think alot of government acting is incompetent. However,
corruption wouldn't be such a big deal if it never happened or was
always incompetent. Conspiracies do happen. I don't think a 9-11
one is likely, but I also don't think its impossible. The
government (and small parts of it) can do things right often
too.
|5.23.08 @ 11:35AM|#
There were no "terrorists" in '93, there was a terrorist who was a disgruntled Muslim from the tribal areas Bush's other friendly dictatorship in SE Asia. He did it on his own and was convicted of it by himself, there were no others indicted as far as I can remember. There are no other plausible enemies that you can co-opt into a any sort of conspiracy that potentially might have a motive that would allow you to get into a war in the mid east. I don't really know what to believe, but I am more than convinced that these people are more than capable of carrying this sort of thing out and they definitely have a motive to do so. I don't believe the "Mozlems" to be sophisticated enough or inclined enough to carry off something like this in such a planned fashion. They're a disgruntled, unorganized bunch of idiots. I don't buy British terrorism either considering almost no one has been convicted, and those who have been have been convicted spuriously. Also a few shady characters are directly connected with the intelligence establishment, as is the case with Bin Landen and CIA.
|5.23.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Truthers, I'm asking nicely. Please find another place to
hangout. The vast majority (90%?) of libertarians consider you a
bunch of loons and have doubts about your mental health and
acuity.
That is never going to change.
|5.23.08 @ 11:44AM|#
If you want to ignore other posters' evidence and links that
debuke the Truthers
As a combination of "debunk" and "rebuke", this is a neologism that
definitely deserves widespread usage.
|5.23.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Marcvs,
Is that book worth reading?
I really enjoyed it just for the schadenfreude. It's a
fairly quick read for 700 pages, as it goes over the entire history
of the CIA and explains the numerous ways in which the they have
basically failed at everything they've done. It is definitely a
good counterpoint to all of the documentaries and conspiracy
theories that paint "The Company" as an efficient intelligence
organization and instead show that it is just another "gubment"
department with all that that entails. It's like the DMV with
guns.
|5.23.08 @ 11:48AM|#
To whomever with a brain:
Every video I see shows a rock solid, non collapsing, non swaying,
structurally sound steel reinforced building (WTC 7) with limited
fires.
Why did every steel beam give way at once? Why was the building
100% destroyed? Why were firefighters all told the building was
"coming down"? Why did BBC report the collapse 23 minutes early?
Why did it "look like" the most perfect controlled demolition we've
ever seen in our lives? Why were there explosions heard around the
scene? Why was all the steel and evidence quickly recycled without
investigation? Why did Professor Jones confirm that thermate was
used for explosions? Why did Silverstein tell them to "pull it"?
Why was there molten metal found at the base of the building? Why
did the top penthouse come down first? Why wasn't there one steel
column remain standing? Why was there a classic pyroclastic flow
that comes only from controlled demolition? What was everything in
the building reduced to a fine powder? Why did it collapse at
freefall speed?
|5.23.08 @ 12:00PM|#
To whomever with a brain:
That's a good way to get people to listen to you. Start with an
insult.
|5.23.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Bob,
All of your implicit claims have been addressed and debunked
multiple times over the last several years, and those of us who
would otherwise help an honestly confused person understand are too
tired of this nonsense to debate an asshole like you. Kindly fuck
off.
|5.23.08 @ 12:19PM|#
1>
Silverstein had insurance on all three World Trade Centers. He
filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy,
based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The
total potential payout is $7.1 billion.
2>
The Neocons got their "New Pearl Harbor" as described in "PNAC",
or, the "Plan for A New American Century". Interestingly enough,
the authors of "PNAC" are the same people in the current
administration.
|5.23.08 @ 12:23PM|#
To Jake Boone:
I'm sorry that the truth hurts you sooo badly. Now I'm curious. How
do you debunk facts, exactly? A fact is a fact. 1 + 1 = 2. Debunk
that for us, Jake.
|5.23.08 @ 12:34PM|#
I believe the question should be, "Where's the BLACK gold?". I don't just believe it was about the oil (by the way, how much is gas nowadays?), but I also believe it was about the military industrial complex. For instance, Pelosi ran on the ticket of the impeachment of Bush. However, once elected, she curiously took impeachment "off the table". A closer look and her husband has heavy investments (15 million) in DoD contracts.
|5.23.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I hope Weigel has access to some LSD. It'll come in handy when he pens "Fear and Loathing in Denver."
|5.23.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I wrote:
All of your implicit claims have been addressed and debunked
[...]
Bob responded with:
How do you debunk facts, exactly? A fact is a fact.
Dishonest crap like that is exactly why I'm not going to debate you
over 9/11, Bob. If you don't understand the difference between a
"fact" and a "claim," your arguments are, to put it charitably,
highly likely to prove fallacious.
Tell you what. Go to the forums at www.randi.org (you can get to
the forums via a link in the left-hand column) and read some of the
9/11 discussions there. You'll see that your claims* have already
been thoroughly addressed, and found to have no real basis in
fact.
* I suggest reading up on the distinction between "claim" and
"fact" before you embarrass yourself further.
BakedPenguin|5.23.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Jake - never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
|5.23.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Nice spin. However, I'm not "confused" nor "embarrassed". I'm sorry Boone, what part of that wasn't factual? (Before you embarrass yourself further).
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 1:05PM|#
3/15 trvth
The Ides of March? Yes, Brutus and company had the whole thing
planned from the start. Et tu, Brute?
|5.23.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Bob,
The typing's already been done, and I'm certainly not inclined to
do it all again for your amusement. Clicking isn't too difficult
for you, I presume?
I say again, the answers to your questions are freely available at
the JREF forums (www.randi.org).
|5.23.08 @ 1:13PM|#
See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the bottom of what happened on 9-11. You try to open people's eyes and some right-wing smear monger wants to send you to some site about aliens and perpetual motion. This IS what Jake Boone (and associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of what your government tells you.
Star Trek Truther|5.23.08 @ 1:17PM|#
See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the bottom of what happened on New Providence. You try to open people's eyes and some Starfleet smear monger wants to send you to some site about transparent aluminum and phaser burn patterns. This IS what Locutus (and associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of your holodeck fantasies and Federation lies.
|5.23.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Hmm. My last comment should have displayed my name as Jake "The
Anti-Truth" Boone.
Clearly this means that the top-flight NSA hackers in the Bush
administration are deleting that title in realtime, in an attempt
to keep me from letting word get out about my top secret
disinformation mission!
Darn that pesky Sasquatch (yes, Bigfoot heads up the NSA hacker
division... the big guy is amazingly fast with a UNIX command
line).
|5.23.08 @ 1:31PM|#
See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the
bottom of what happened on 9-11. You try to open people's eyes and
some right-wing smear monger wants to send you to some site about
aliens and perpetual motion. This IS what Jake Boone (and
associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people
like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of what your
government tells you.
Polling Reasonoids -
Troll?
or
True Believer?
|5.23.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Every video I see shows a rock solid, non collapsing, non swaying, structurally sound steel reinforced building (WTC 7) with limited fires.
Here you go moron:
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
|5.23.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Polling Reasonoids -
Troll?
or
True Believer?
Characterizing the JREF as "some site about aliens and perpetual
motion" is pretty strong evidence to put him in troll country, as
far as I'm concerned. Plus there's no horde of truthers here
supporting him; usually they come in gangs. I vote troll.
|5.23.08 @ 1:51PM|#
And that's whay there was molten steel found in the wreckage of WTC 7? Professor Steven Jones is lying about finding thermate in the wreckage? hmmmm
|5.23.08 @ 2:03PM|#
And that's whay there was molten steel found in the wreckage of WTC 7? Professor Steven Jones is lying about finding thermate in the wreckage? hmmmm
Yes. That's why both the entire BYU physics department and civil
engineering departments have disowned him and why his paper has
never appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
|5.23.08 @ 2:06PM|#
So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall
speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of
demollition? Anyone?
If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition
"experts" out there. They obviously aren't needed anymore.
|5.23.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Here you
go Bob:
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
|5.23.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Good luck, Jordan.
If he stays true to Truther form, every time you answer a claim,
he'll just pivot to his next one without ever actually addressing
the fact that you said anything. Soon he'll go right back to
questions already answered... in fact, just like you see in his
most recent post, as Isaac Bartram answered that one up-thread
already. Bob's response? Ignore the answer and repeat the
question.
|5.23.08 @ 2:20PM|#
So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of demollition? Anyone?
The only people claiming that the buildings fell at free-fall
speeds are nutjobs like you who never offer any evidence to support
this assertion. Dr.
Frank Greening has already debunked this nonsense in detail.
More here.
Jennifer|5.23.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I'm just amazed that anyone can simultaneously believe the
following two things:
1)The government is evil enough and brilliant enough to
bring down the World Trade Center and make it all look like a
terrorist attack; and yet,
2) When a couple of gadflies like Steven Jones run around finding
evidence of this wicked conspiracy, the same government which
murdered thousands of people and framed Osama for it either can't
or won't arrange for Jones himself to have a little "accident."
Jordan|5.23.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Good luck, Jordan.
If he stays true to Truther form, every time you answer a claim, he'll just pivot to his next one without ever actually addressing the fact that you said anything. Soon he'll go right back to questions already answered... in fact, just like you see in his most recent post, as Isaac Bartram answered that one up-thread already. Bob's response? Ignore the answer and repeat the question.
Aye, tis sad but true.
|5.23.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Jordan, if you were stating that this evidence is flimsy at
best, I would agree with you.
However, it still doesn't answer the bigger question:
============
So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall
speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of
demollition? Anyone?
If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition
"experts" out there. They obviously aren't needed anymore.
=============
|5.23.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Dear Jennifer:
Please read about the "Golf of Tonken" incident. Then you'll know
how far our government will go to trick the people into going into
war. This is nothing new.
|5.23.08 @ 2:47PM|#
However, it still doesn't answer the bigger question:
Hence the reason I provided two links which you conveniently
ignored.
|5.23.08 @ 2:58PM|#
THE TRUTH REVEALED!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories
|5.23.08 @ 3:50PM|#
If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition[sic] "experts" out there.
Bob, I'd sure as hell fire any demolition "expert" that produced a
"controlled demolition" as messy as the WTC collapse.
And someone might be able to answer your May 23, 2008, 11:48am post
if you could produce a single credible authority who had ever made
such claims. It is easy to create a conspiracy theory when all of
your evidence is either false, ambiguous or irrelevant.
The fact is the buildings did not collapse "into their own
footprint[s]". Nor did they fall "identically." Each fell rather
chaotically scattering debris for blocks and having huge
multi-story column sections fall away from the buildings and
causing damage to surrounding buildings and streets. And any
reputable engineer will tell you that the way Towers 1 and 2 fell
was entirely consistent with damage from the airliner impacts and
the resulting fires. And that WTC7 collapsed dues to major
structural from a column section from one of the towers plus the
fires that burned all day long with pretty much no firefighting
effort.
Oh, and here the reliable Bush partisans and neocons at SydneyUni join the
conspiracy.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
lunchstealer|5.23.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Why did it collapse at freefall speed?
Oh, I can answer that one.
You see, masses are attracted to one another via what we call the
gravitational force. Relativistic discussions aside, we can begin
by treating the earth as a uniform spherical mass, which can be
represented by a point source located at the earth's center of
mass.
Now, the earth is rotating, which modifies the acceleration due to
gravity, such that gravity is weakest at the equator, and strongest
at the poles. This is exacerbated by the fact that the earth is
actually an oblate spheroid, meaning that you are further from the
center of mass at the equator than at the poles.
Further modifications to this force come due to your elevation
above sealevel. This is referred to as the 'free air' correction.
The Bouguer correction adds a correction for the amount of rock
supporting you at the level above sea-level, but since this
building rested effectively at sea level, we can neglect this
component for these purposes.
The final big correction would come from the terrain and large
objects surrounding the building. With the hudson immediately
adjacent, and the low-density continental shelf to the
south/southeast, this would serve to reduce the local acceleration
due to gravity further.
So that's basically how things collapse at free fall. It's because
of gravity, which is largely a function of latitude, elevation,
local rock density, and terrain.
Why was there a classic pyroclastic flow that comes only from
controlled demolition?
By 'controlled demolition', do you perhaps mean 'volcanic
eruption'? Because that's what creates a pyroclastic flow. The
debris outflow from a building collapse is similar to a pyroclastic
flow, but is not caused by the explosions, and is thus not the
superheated mass that lends the 'pyro' part of the name. The source
of the debris-air mixture is the sudden shock of collapse
shattering large quantities of concrete and drywall. This mixes
with air and produces a dense mass that then falls and flows out in
exactly the same way that the collapsing ash column flows down the
flanks of a volcano.
So yeah, you guys are kinda clue-limited.
|5.23.08 @ 4:21PM|#
It would seem better for (insert any holistic mankind term here)
would be better off if 9/11 was simply flushed down a memory hole
and we never had to hear of it again.
Disclosure, Truther stole my boyfriend
|5.23.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Premise: 9/11 was an enormous government conspiracy
Premise: Libertarians want tiny governments and no taxes
Conclusion: Demand an expensive taxpayer funded government
investigatory boondoggle!
|5.23.08 @ 4:49PM|#
p.s. The above comment was a joke. I do not personally believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job anymore than I believe aliens crashlanded at Roswell or the Apollo 11 moonshot was faked.
Episiarch|5.23.08 @ 5:10PM|#
The above comment was a joke. I do not personally believe
that 9/11 was an "inside" job anymore than I believe aliens
crash-landed at Roswell or the Apollo 11 moonshot was
faked.
Hey, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Haven't
you seen Capricorn
One?
|5.23.08 @ 6:25PM|#
The witnesses (and fire fighters) lied about hearing explosions before, during, and after the collapse? What are those "flashes" on the buildings right before the collapse? What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of the airplanes right before impact?
|5.23.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Bob -
I've already told you (twice!) where the answers to your questions can be
found.
Buhbye now.
|5.23.08 @ 6:44PM|#
What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of the airplanes right before impact? Try to smear that one, Boone.
Isaac Newton|5.23.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Improbable Collapse is a very well done film, and scientifically
accurate:
Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
It has the brilliant analysis of Jim Hoffman, the ONE man that all
debunkers fear!
Mike Laursen|5.23.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate
towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand
out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".
All I know is you gotta meet some of the Green Party's faithful.
The LP has no corner on nutty market.
Mike Laursen|5.23.08 @ 10:54PM|#
My father once said that the core of every political party
is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason
the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the
core.
I came to the same conclusion. The party may change someday, but
for now that core has had control for a long time and have set up
the rules to keep all other libertarians out. That's OK -- it's
their prerogative.
|5.23.08 @ 11:28PM|#
What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of
the airplanes right before impact? Try to smear that one,
Boone.
My 12-year-old (Ethan) is looking over my shoulder. As he read your
most recent post, Bob, he exclaimed, "what a fucking dumbass!" (He
gets a pass on the vulgarity; it's accurate, and my wife and
6-year-old are out of town.)
My 12-year-old is clearly far, far smarter than you are, Bob.
Ethan can also follow links, like this one.
Thom Simmons|5.24.08 @ 9:01AM|#
The Truth crowd are a collection of wackos and need to collectively be shown the door out of the Libertarian Party. They cling to silly, hysterical conspiracy theories that appeal to teenagers looking for drama. Their theories are an insult to anyone who intimately knows the WTC site and New York City. Please go home and peddle your stupidity in quiet, so the rest of us can build a credible third party.
dhex|5.24.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Disclosure, Truther stole my boyfriend
look on the bright side: it saved you from some pretty hefty
long-term costs, though.
It has the brilliant analysis of Jim Hoffman, the ONE man that
all debunkers fear!
oddly enough, the loose change fans aren't big on him,
either.
of course, "fear" is a bit much, and my initial reaction would be
to say "if you really do take this seriously, shouldn't it be
treated like more than a comic book sports bar mashup?"
on the other hand, one's beliefs about 9/11 are fairly cost free
(so long as you aren't a dick about it, natch) so it does serve a
kind of spectator sport role too. similar to "my team can beat up
your team" but with more hyperlinks.
|5.27.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Boone,
You still didn't explain what those flahes of lights were in front
of the airplanes right before impacting the buildings. All you have
is hate and hyperlinks to UFO pages, no rational explanations from
you.
|5.27.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Holy crap, Bob, are you still at it?
Funny how on a brilliant sunny day, light reflects off highly
polished surfaces.
|5.27.08 @ 5:03PM|#
That seems rational, Isaac. However, would all cameras show that same "trick" even at different angles and on BOTH planes just as they impact the buildings? Rational, yes, but seems unlikely to me.
|5.27.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like reflections:
http://911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/4flashes.jpg
What do you guys think?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245