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
Candidates for Truth!
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's candidate for president, snagged his nomination in part because of his connections and friendship to Ron Paul, and his promise to carry on the rEVOLution. That makes it all the more disturbing when we see video of Baldwin indulging in 9/11 kookery. In this video, he first makes clear that he doesn't trust the conclusions of the Warren Commission, then speculates about the Twin Towers. (How this squares with his first post-9/11 theory, that God punished us by sending the attackers, is a mystery to me.)
I don't know whether there was any kind of an inside apparatus involved in this or not... If there's duplicity involved in some kind of conspiracy, then let's find out who it is and prosecute whoever's involved.
Is it possible to spend too much time discussing this stuff? Sure. It's a fringe movement. But it's a fringe movement that has the potential to discredit Libertarians the way that the hobgoblins of the Birchers—water flouridation, etc—discredited the old right. At the LP Convention, I winced as all but three candidates partipated in a Truther debate. I winced again when I heard one delegation caucusing before the fourth presidential ballot, with every delegate given the chance to make the case for his/her candidate, and the Ruwart supporting delegate argued that only her candidate would investigate 9/11 Truth. I can't think of anything worse for libertarians than gibbering conspiracy theorists taking it upon themselves to speak for us.
UPDATE: Mind you, I don't think the Baldwin campaign will be dull. His coalition of Hal Lindsay social-cons and Alex Jones prison-warriors has been a long time coming. The universe Baldwin moves around in is fascinating. To wit, here's the schedule of the Alex Jones episode on which Jones endorsed Baldwin:
Alex welcomes Jesse Ventura, Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association member Bill Grumbine, Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, and Bilderberg researcher and journalist Jim Tucker.
And Baldwin re-re-re-aborted the career of Alan Keyes, for which all free men must be thankful.
|5.29.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I can't think of anything worse for libertarians than
gibbering conspiracy theorists taking it upon themselves to speak
for us.
So calling for a 9/11 investigation -- without ever saying it was
an "inside job" -- is worse for libertarianism than nominating a
pro-drug war, moralistic right-winger who was one of two
Republicans dumb enough to agree to an interview with Borat?
|5.29.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I can't think of anything worse for libertarians than
gibbering conspiracy theorists taking it upon themselves to speak
for us.
You can't? Really? He don't know us very well do he?
No, but Barr took the crown, and here's the Constitution Party
stepping up to the moonbat table. So we're off the hook this
time.
|5.29.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Well, libertarianism is a magnet for malcontents and misfits
that adhere to any political movement which will validate their
maladjustment. Nothing new about that. Before libertarianism, it
was the New Left that attracted that type. And as you pointed out,
before that the Old Right.
That type seems to attach themselves to movements too desperate for
supporters to give them the bum's rush. Which the libertarians
should have done years ago...
Orange Line Special|5.29.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Next thing you know he'll be disputing the
SingleBulletTheory!
Note to readers: in the case of Reason, "anything worse for
libertarians" means "oh noes, we won't get invited to swanky dinner
parties!"
|5.29.08 @ 4:38PM|#
So calling for a 9/11 investigation -- without ever saying
it was an "inside job" -- is worse for libertarianism than
nominating a pro-drug war, moralistic right-winger who was one of
two Republicans dumb enough to agree to an interview with
Borat?
First off, I thought we had an investigation already. Secondly, it
seemed like Keyes was the person interviewed by Borat who wasn't
made to look like a fool... the irony, no?
|5.29.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Well, it looks like the Truthertarians have found their
candidate. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Oh yeah, and unity and stuff.
David Weigel|5.29.08 @ 4:40PM|#
So calling for a 9/11 investigation -- without ever saying
it was an "inside job" -- is worse for libertarianism...
Uh... Baldwin said "I don't know whether there was any kind of an
inside apparatus involved in this or not."
|5.29.08 @ 4:42PM|#
First off, I thought we had an investigation
already.
Yeah, but that investigation was actually the rear-guard of the
conspiracy.
And if President Ruwart had ordered a 9/11 investigation and its
conclusions agreed with the 19 hijacker theory, Truthers would say
she was part of the conspiracy, too, and demand another
investigation.
Episiarch the Truther Paultard|5.29.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Weigel, you and your gay lover Kirchick are the reason Ron Paul isn't president already and convening a new 9-11 investigation headed by Dylan Avery! THEY TOOK UR INSIDE JERB!!!
|5.29.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Isn't it perfectly possible, from his point of view, to believe
that God punished us by sending the attackers, and that the
attackers God sent were led by forces within the government?
I mean, if I believed in the kind of nonsense that God would send
individuals to destroy America, I can think of few better
candidates for that job than George W. Bush.
bill|5.29.08 @ 4:47PM|#
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."-- J. Edgar Hoover
Anthony Gregory|5.29.08 @ 4:50PM|#
What's wrong with being anti-fluoridation? I just want to know which positions are respectable or not. Used to be, opposing the drug war was considered "loony." Is that the right position to take on that, too?
Orange Line Special|5.29.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Let me try and light a candle, despite all the CO around here
that makes that difficult.
There are the loons, and then there are those who have questions.
Establishment hacks try to lump them together in order to avoid any
questions being asked. Nothing better should be expected of Reason
than to fall into line, since they're little more than
establishment hacks.
It would be possible to request more information and at the same
time work to discredit those who don't want questions to be asked,
but that would involve actually working to discredit those people.
And, doing that is too difficult for many to a) figure out and b)
actually follow through on.
|5.29.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Isn't it perfectly possible, from his point of view, to
believe that God punished us by sending the attackers, and that the
attackers God sent were led by forces within the
government?
God hasn't stuck around for 12 billion years by depending on Rube
Goldberg conspiracies to carry out his will. And, incidentally, if
the attacks were God's Will, wouldn't investigating them be kind of
impious?
|5.29.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Mr. Gregory,
If the arguments in favor of your position have been discredited
again and again, and you keep making them, your position is loony.
That's why Truthers and anti-fluoridationists (if they're using the
same arg as the Birchers did in times past) are loons. This is not,
of course, the case with being against the war on drugs, since the
arguments against the WoD are confirmed again and again.
|5.29.08 @ 5:00PM|#
So calling for a 9/11 investigation -- without ever saying
it was an "inside job" -- is worse for libertarianism than
nominating a pro-drug war, moralistic right-winger who was one of
two Republicans dumb enough to agree to an interview with
Borat?
Yes, fuckhead. Yes.
areln specter\'s brain tumor|5.29.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Hey guess what, dipshit?
90% of the country doesn't believe the Warren Commission and the
kooky Magic Bullet theory.
That puts you in the radical 10% pro-government fringe group. An
odd place for a "libertarian."
Anyway, Baldwin's position on this doesn't sound much different
form Barr's -- both said they'd prosecute more people for 9/11 if
their Justice Department had evidence.
Nigel Watt|5.29.08 @ 5:11PM|#
If the arguments in favor of your position have been discredited again and again, and you keep making them, your position is loony. That's why Truthers and anti-fluoridationists (if they're using the same arg as the Birchers did in times past) are loons. This is not, of course, the case with being against the war on drugs, since the arguments against the WoD are confirmed again and again.
The restriction on freedom of choice imposed by water flouridation
has been disproven?
|5.29.08 @ 5:14PM|#
With Christine Smith leaving the LP, is there going to be a new party? And what would they call it?
|5.29.08 @ 5:14PM|#
"I can't think of anything worse for libertarians than
gibbering conspiracy theorists taking it upon themselves to speak
for us."
I think there's some stiff competition from people associated with
wacky newsletters and letting ex-Republicans treat us like a cheap
date, but yeah, conspiracy theorists speaking for us in public wins
by a neck.
...but unless one of truthers who didn't win the nomination is out
there speaking on our behalf, then I'm not so sure they took it
upon themselves to whatever. For all I know, the candidates who
were sympathetic to the truthers lost the nomination because of
their sympathy.
I would agree, however, that if the LP only offers us a) conspiracy
theorists to discredit us or b) a Patriot Act supporting, gay
marriage bashing, former Drug War general with a jail house
conversion, then, yeah, the LP better start thinking about ways to
justify itself.
Nash|5.29.08 @ 5:14PM|#
"But it's a fringe movement that has the potential to discredit
Libertarians the way that the hobgoblins of the Birchers-water
flouridation, etc-discredited the old right."
It would be a real shame because as go the Libertarians, so too go
the Neo-Pagans.
MattXIV|5.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Don't worry Nigel - the market has provided a wide variety of non-tap bottled water products so those who wish to preserve the purity of essence of their precious bodily fluids no longer have to limit themselves to rain water and vodka.
Colin|5.29.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Anyway, Baldwin's position on this doesn't sound much
different form Barr's -- both said they'd prosecute more people for
9/11 if their Justice Department had evidence.
Wrong. Barr said he would forward any "credible" evidence to the
Justice Department. Baldwin is saying he would initiate a Truther
commision. Big difference.
I wonder what the guy who created the "Revolution" logo for Paul
thinks about its appropriation by Baldwin.
Nigel Watt|5.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Don't worry Nigel - the market has provided a wide variety of non-tap bottled water products so those who wish to preserve the purity of essence of their precious bodily fluids no longer have to limit themselves to rain water and vodka.
I drink tap, because I've concluded that flouride isn't harmful.
But that doesn't make it right to force people who disagree to have
their water supply be flouridated.
svf|5.29.08 @ 5:39PM|#
I wonder what the guy who created the "Revolution" logo for
Paul thinks about its appropriation by Baldwin.
I was wondering the same thing... he was an LP Arizona delegate or
something, wasn't he...? Didn't I read that here somewhere...?
|5.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#
...he first makes clear that he doesn't trust the
conclusions of the Warren Commission, then speculates about the
Twin Towers. (How this squares with his first post-9/11 theory,
that God punished us by sending the attackers, is a mystery to
me.)
There may be a bright side to all of this. Perhaps the truthers
will gravitate to the Constitution party and leave us Libertarians
alone.
That's right truthers, you are not welcome in the Libertarian
party. Take your "speed of freefall" and particle beam weapon
theories over to the Constitution party. They'll listen while
feigning respect, rather than mock you like libertaians always
do.
Don't let the door hit you ...
|5.29.08 @ 5:44PM|#
a Patriot Act supporting, gay marriage bashing, former Drug
War general with a jail house conversion, then, yeah, the LP better
start thinking about ways to justify itself.
Ken, stop that. you should have put former in front of all
that.
It's a cheap shot to suggest that Barr hasn't changed when he's
stated he has.
charlie|5.29.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Weigel: Uh... Baldwin said "I don't know whether there was
any kind of an inside apparatus involved in this or
not."
Dude, I know you're like this ultra-smart blogger and all, but I
read that as Baldwin saying he doesn't know if 9/11 was an inside
job or not... which, uh, means he's not saying 9/11 was an inside
job.
Again, maybe he should just say "of course it wasn't", but you're
making a mountain out of a fucking mole hill. Considering your
continual shilling for Barr -- who has plenty more skeletons in his
closet that you have chosen to ignore, unlike a certain other
politician popular in libertarian circles -- focusing on this is
b.s. is, well, expected.
|5.29.08 @ 5:52PM|#
"Ken, stop that. you should have put former in front of all
that.
It's a cheap shot to suggest that Barr hasn't changed when he's
stated he has.
Excuse me, but doesn't "jail house conversion" cover that?
Yes, I think it does. Maybe you just missed it?
|5.29.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Please forgive me. I've just got to do this.
Chuck Baldwin is an ignorant hillbilly
redneck whack-job preacher.
|5.29.08 @ 5:54PM|#
if you admit he had a "conversion" (and can we stop calling it
that? Libertarianism isn't a religion), then why continue to call
him a gay basher and a PATRIOT Act supporter?
Barr isn't perfect, but Libertarians act as if every other
candidate before him was some shining example of snow-white purity.
Whatever happened to the Nolan Chart? Whatever happened to big tent
libertarianism?
"oh noes! I have an 80-80 on the Nolan Chart! I must be a
neocon."
Taktix®|5.29.08 @ 5:54PM|#
The libertarian ship, lost at see after being expelled by the
conservatives, has dropped the Truthers off at Crazypants
island.
Still looking for sight of land, however...
|5.29.08 @ 5:59PM|#
There is no such thing as a Magic Bullet Theory. I wouldn't believe it either, if it existed.
|5.29.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Slightly OT, but speaking of Barr...
I was fiddling around with an online EC calculator today, and I
found this- If McCain takes all the Bush 2004 states, minus Ohio
but plus New Hampshire, all Barr has to do is win any one Bush 2004
state to cost McCain the Presidency by sending the election to the
House. Looking at the Mountain West and Alaska, it's not hard to
see just that happening if Barr focuses on those states with a
centrist-libertarian message of the type that all state-level major
parties in the area lean towards (relatively speaking).
Wouldn't that be something?
|5.29.08 @ 6:03PM|#
Just out of curiosity, to those who think Barr is lying about
having repented his pro-WOD, anti-gay marriage positions: What,
exactly, does he stand to gain by leaving the Republican Party,
spending a couple of years on the advisory board of the LP, and
running for pres on the LP ticket?
I mean, Giuliani and Bloomberg both switched to the Republicans as
a strategem to win the mayoralty, because they could just be handed
the R nomination rather than go through a bruising Dem primary.
They were obviously Republicans of Convenience.
But Barr? Let's see. He left a party which had actual influence to
join a party that's regularly dismissed as a bunch of moonbats by
its own members, and ended up running a certain-to-lose
presidential campaign. What on Earth could his motivation be, other
than that he shares libertarian ideas and wants to try and spread
them?
|5.29.08 @ 6:03PM|#
(and can we stop calling it that? Libertarianism isn't a
religion)
Well, to some it seems to be, which is why purity is valued above
all else.
|5.29.08 @ 6:04PM|#
"if you admit he had a "conversion" (and can we stop calling
it that? Libertarianism isn't a religion), then why continue to
call him a gay basher and a PATRIOT Act supporter?"
Oh, I'm not admitting he had a "conversion"; I'm recognizing that
he says he's converted--and I remain dubious considering that he a)
voted for the Patriot Act despite the arguments libertarians
offered up at the time and b) he voted for the "You Can't Marry
Your Dog Act". I'm saying he supported them before his "jail house
conversion" 'cause that's what he did before he flip-flopped.
Maybe you know what's in his heart; all I know is what he's done.
...until he explains himself to my satisfaction, he needs to
explain himself. And maybe the LP should be a big tent, but it
should never become anybody's consolation prize.
|5.29.08 @ 6:08PM|#
"What on Earth could his motivation be, other than that he
shares libertarian ideas and wants to try and spread
them?"
Can I interest you in buying some waterfront property in
Florida?
|5.29.08 @ 6:09PM|#
all Barr has to do is win any one Bush 2004 state to cost
McCain the Presidency by sending the election to the
House.
If the election went to the House...it would get a lot more
interesting than losing McCain the Presidency. The Republicans
control more states than the Democrats...
|5.29.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Can I interest you in buying some waterfront property in
Florida?
Very droll, but not an answer.
|5.29.08 @ 6:11PM|#
With Christine Smith leaving the LP, is there going to be a
new party? And what would they call it?
An Army Party of One.
|5.29.08 @ 6:15PM|#
"Can I interest you in buying some waterfront property in
Florida?"
I'm still waiting for some explanation as to how Barr has
supposedly dishonestly benefited from leaving the GOP for the
LP.
"The Republicans control more states than the Democrats..."
Nope. The Republicans only control 22 state delegations in the
House.
|5.29.08 @ 6:19PM|#
And maybe the LP should be a big tent, but it should never
become anybody's consolation prize.
The fact that you think this is the case with Barr means you're
calling him a liar and an opportunist. As has been pointed out to
you, trying being an opportunist with the LP doesn't make you a
very good opportunist.
you asssume it's his consolation prize. there isn't a shred of
evidence to support that assertion.
|5.29.08 @ 6:23PM|#
one cannot be properly anti-fluoridation unless one knows how to
spell it correctly.
back on-topic, god, the libertarian party is an embarrassment. on
sooooo many levels. this is going to be a horrible election year
for small-l libertarians. we can't even get someone decent to throw
away a vote on.
|5.29.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Just to throw it out there:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3876.html
'Ron Paul's former aide reveals: "We needed" Barr to vote for the
PATRIOT Act
Brad Jansen, Ron Paul's former congressional banking staffer, says
that Bob Barr was the opposition coalition's "man on the
inside".'
|5.29.08 @ 6:26PM|#
There are the loons, and then there are those who have
questions.
I think irony has just been taken out behind the woodshed and been
beaten to death with a synonym.
GILMORE|5.29.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Orange Line Special | May 29, 2008, 4:52pm | #
There are the loons, and then there are those who have
questions.
Then there's you. Asshole loons, impervious to reason, constantly
claiming to be raising "questions" while ignoring obvious answers,
convinced that the rest of the world fails to think the *right way*
because no one actually agrees with your bullshit
You're incapable of debate, so why do you constantly complain no
one takes you up on your prefabbed terms? You practice grade-school
polemics. You run around and snottily describe everyone around as
fools who refuse to recognize the truths that are apparently
revealed to you alone.
and you're just a loser. If you even had a point, it would be
nullified by your loathsome personality and self-worship.
No one likes you
Hope that helps.
|5.29.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Obligatory-
http://xkcd.com/258/
I'm a fairly radical minarchist, but the association of hardcore
libertarianism with conspiracy theories and similar nonsense is
discouraging, to say the least. Fusionism with Alex Jone's lot is a
lot more counterproductive than was fusionism with William F.
Buckley's crowd could have ever been, and I say that as someone
who's no Buckley apologist. I'd even go so far to say that a
Troofer-free ticket is the only thing good I can say about Root
beating Kubby for VP.
|5.29.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Andy Craig-
Why is fusionism with ALex Jone's lot a lot more counterproductive
than fusionism with William F. Buckley's crowd could ever have
been?
I trust that your assertion is mere speculation as there is
absolutely no evidence to support it. After all, please tell us how
you are measuring the accuracy of such an assertion. Further,
please tell us how your proposition could ever be measured.
KyleG|5.29.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Not a truther but I would be interested in seeing the full footage from the pentagon attack.
|5.29.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Me too KyleG.
I watched 9-11 Mysteries the other day. It was a real eye-opener.
They showed some really good shots of the base of the World Trade
Centers where something "i.e. thermite" had cut the beams at almost
perfectly 45 degree angles. I recommend that movie.
The only reason why they attack the truthers like that is because
they can't attack the message.
GILMORE|5.29.08 @ 7:40PM|#
liberty mike | May 29, 2008, 7:08pm | #
Andy Craig-
Why is fusionism with ALex Jone's lot a lot more counterproductive
than fusionism with William F. Buckley's crowd could ever have
been?
Because those people are idiots?
They are like the radical anti-globalization rioters via a via
'democrats'. They tar the whole basic group with the color of
screaming anti-rationalism.
Colin|5.29.08 @ 7:42PM|#
If the election went to the House...it would get a lot more
interesting than losing McCain the Presidency. The Republicans
control more states than the Democrats...
Wouldn't the next congress be the one to vote?
GILMORE|5.29.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Bob | May 29, 2008, 7:37pm | #
Me too KyleG.
I watched 9-11 Mysteries the other day. It was a real
eye-opener.
Of course.
As a footnote = I WAS THERE. FUCKING PLANES TOOK THE BUILDINGS
DOWN. You arent 'discovering' anything more than what other idiots
'discovered' questioning niggling details of the first moon
landing.
You seeing what you want to see homie.
|5.29.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Dude, I know you're like this ultra-smart blogger and all,
but I read that as Baldwin saying he doesn't know if 9/11 was an
inside job or not... which, uh, means he's not saying 9/11 was an
inside job.
Maybe we should have federal investigations of:
- whether the earth is actually flat
- whether men really landed on the moon
- govt coverups of perpetual motion machines and engines that run
on water
I mean, I'm not saying any of these things are actually true, I'm
just saying they should be investigated.
|5.29.08 @ 7:50PM|#
They showed some really good shots of the base of the World
Trade Centers where something "i.e. thermite" had cut the beams at
almost perfectly 45 degree angles.
...and this proves what exactly?
That's one problem with Truthers -- you just throw out random bits
of information, like that guy with "did you know the Bushes have an
account with the same bank as the Bin Ladens?", with no explanation
of how it fits into your theory, and then get pissed because no one
refutes your "argument". You're not making a fucking argument,
you're just insinuating!
|5.29.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Ken Schultz,
Just curious, were you a 100%-100% libertarian on the Nolan Chart
from the moment of conception?
Colin|5.29.08 @ 7:53PM|#
I once knew a chick who was not only a Holocaust denier but also
firmly believed no man had ever set foot on the moon.
I don't know if she's a Truther, but I wouldn't doubt it.
There's no way to argue with these people. Their positions are
unfalsifiable. Getting upset at their nonsense only legitimizes
them.
Metal Messiah|5.29.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Is not the Constitution Party filled with
Dominionist/Reconstructionist assholes who want to burn heretics at
the stake and stone loose women?
Taking everything into consideration, 911 truthers seem to be least
of their problems.
|5.29.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Wouldn't the next congress be the one to vote?
I don't believe so. I think that the 110th would have to do it
because the 111th hasn't been sworn in and seated yet.
|5.29.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Gilmore-
There must be some history between you and Mr. Orange Line of
which, I confess, I am ignorant.
|5.29.08 @ 8:01PM|#
There must be some history between you and Mr. Orange Line
of which, I confess, I am ignorant
Nah man, there's history between OLS and ALL of us. OLS is AKA
Lonewacko, who persistently trolls this website, claiming that
we're all a bunch of IgnorantBuffoons because we don't recognize
the threat from the MexicanGovernment WRT IllegalImmigration.
Colin|5.29.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Ayn, not saying you're wrong, but take a look at this:
http://www.clevelandcounty.com/public/boe/ecollege.htm
According to #16, congress counts the votes on January 6; and then,
according to #20, the House votes immediately in case of a
tie.
I believe the new congress would be sworn in by then (not sure of
the exact date, but the last one was sworn in on January 4,
2007.)
|5.29.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Colin,
I believe Congress is supposed to be sworn in as soon as possible
after Jan 1.
|5.29.08 @ 8:23PM|#
...that is, the first weekday after Jan. 1. So it would definitely be the new House voting.
Kyle|5.29.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Seriously, isn't this like the third or fourth thread this week that has devolved into 9/11 talk?
|5.29.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Colin-
Do you think that Holocaust deniers should be incarcerated? How
about Holocasut skeptics?
Do you think that libertarians should spend more time whining and
worrying about about how 9/11 truthers might discredit them or
getting off their keyboards and doing something about "hate" laws
that outlaw free inquiry on penalty of prison?
Kolohe|5.29.08 @ 9:04PM|#
It's official, liberty mike is the Bizarro version of
Neil.
Welcome back, Cesar!
|5.29.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Kolohe,
I still refuse to believe Jesse Walker's single-poster theory about
Neil. Like the magic bullet, he was in too many places at once.
|5.29.08 @ 9:25PM|#
First off, I thought we had an investigation already.
We did have an investigation. But it didn't produce the results
that the Troofers wanted. So they're demanding another one.
What is so sad, is that so many of them call themselves
"libertarian", even though they want the *government* to spend
*taxpayer* money on an investigation. And if the next investigation
doesn't have the result the want, they demand to spend even more of
the taxpayers' money. Nothing's stopping them from spending their
own money, but they're so selfish they demand that you and I pay
for it instead.
|5.29.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
Back and to the left.
And. . .
Back and to the left.
Colin|5.29.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Colin-
Do you think that Holocaust deniers should be incarcerated? How
about Holocasut skeptics?
No. They should simply be ridiculed.
But, as far as I know, there are no such laws in the US. What other
countries do is their own business.
Colin|5.29.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I still refuse to believe Jesse Walker's single-poster
theory about Neil.
It should be obvious to everyone that there was another poster in
the grassy knoll.
|5.30.08 @ 12:03AM|#
It isn't the quarterback who has bedded dozens of women who is likely to backhand you when you call him faggot. It is the fence sitter, the guy who has occasionally wondered about doing the tight end, whom you have to worry about pummeling you. Likewise it is with the anti-Truthers. If there wasn't an element of doubt in their minds, if they hadn't chosen sides on the basis of majoritarianism rather than their own independent analysis, they would care not about the dissenting opinions of others. Note that no one gets heated over the opinions of flat-earthers. The appropriate response is to feel sorry for them, not attack them. One only gets heated over issue to which you have made an ego investment, and you don't make an ego investment in sound science, you make them in picking sides, i.e. politics. The hotter the anti-Truthers get the more likely I consider it that they might actually be on to something.
|5.30.08 @ 12:31AM|#
If my political dealings meant constantly running into
flat-earthers demanding an investigation into the Foucault Pendulum
Experiment Conspiracy, I'd be heated at them too.
It isn't the quarterback who has bedded dozens of women who is
likely to backhand you when you call him faggot.
I hear this bit of wisdom all the time, and I wonder if the people
who say it have really tried calling a guy like that a faggot. I
don't think it would go as well as you think.
|5.30.08 @ 1:27AM|#
liberty mike: "Why is fusionism with ALex Jone's lot a lot more
counterproductive than fusionism with William F. Buckley's crowd
could ever have been?"
Because hitching our horse to Buckley's cart was at least hitching
it to a cart that was going somewhere, even if we ultimately lost
control of where (well, we never really had control in the first
place). Conspiracy theorists are the perpetual fringe- which is to
a degree what hardcore libertarianism is already in the process of
becoming. I don't think that's a good thing.
And then there's the fact that libertarianism is an inherently
rational, objective, and to a degree scientific and formulaic
philosophy. ("free minds and free markets" as the slogan goes) The
irrational subjectiveness behind conspiracy theories is the
antithesis of the building blocks of libertarian theory. I'm no Ayn
Rand dogmatist, but I don't see how a contradiction like that can
be healthy.
thoreau|5.30.08 @ 2:48AM|#
Note to readers: in the case of Reason, "anything worse for
libertarians" means "oh noes, we won't get invited to swanky dinner
parties!"
Well, you wouldn't like those parties anyway. A lot of the time
they have Mexican waiters.
B|5.30.08 @ 2:52AM|#
"Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's candidate for
president, snagged his nomination in part because of his
connections and friendship to Ron Paul, and his promise to carry on
the rEVOLution. That makes it all the more disturbing when we see
video of Baldwin indulging in 9/11 kookery"
That doesn't make him much different that Ron Paul. Paul refused to
condemn "Truthers" and he often appeared on the radio show of one
of the most well-known "Truthers".
Next thing you know, we will find out he hates black people, just
like Paul.
Jamie|5.30.08 @ 5:04AM|#
Yes, but Baldwin didn't really say any of that. It was, uh, a ghost writer. Why, some of his best friends are people who aren't Truthers.
BakedPenguin|5.30.08 @ 5:06AM|#
Chilli, to continue your analogy, if you come up to us in your assless leather truther chaps and sling a more-than-companionable arm around our shoulders just as the hot chick is walking by, we are going to be pissed. Why? Because you fucked up our chances with her. So no, it's not latent trutherism that propels the intense distaste for those ideas here.
|5.30.08 @ 9:45AM|#
If there wasn't an element of doubt in their minds, if they
hadn't chosen sides on the basis of majoritarianism rather than
their own independent analysis, they would care not about the
dissenting opinions of others. Note that no one gets heated over
the opinions of flat-earthers. The appropriate response is to feel
sorry for them, not attack them. One only gets heated over issue to
which you have made an ego investment, and you don't make an ego
investment in sound science, you make them in picking sides, i.e.
politics. The hotter the anti-Truthers get the more likely I
consider it that they might actually be on to something.
Wrong, you delusional simpleton! You miss the fact that many
intelligent, informed folks do not suffer fools gladly. Astrology
believers, alien abduction enthusiasts, sightings of the Madomma,
Kennedy assassination conspiacists, 9/11 truthers, creationists,
biblical literalists, Velikovsky and Von Daniken dumbasses, et al,
all get mocked by intelligent ihformed individuals who are just
weary of dumbshittedness.
Yes Chilli, you are all lumpded together. And please, go away.
|5.30.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Paul refused to condemn "Truthers" and he often appeared on
the radio show of one of the most well-known "Truthers".
Dr Paul publicly stated his disagreement with Truthers on several
nationally televised interviews. And what have Truthers done that
is worthy of condemnation?
Dave W.|5.30.08 @ 10:49AM|#
There was piss poor air defense response on 9/11. That should be
investigated better. Blame for the piss poor air defense response
should be attributed.
Skyscrapers should not collapse quickly and catastrophically from a
fire. That should be investigated. Blame for the poor design and/or
construction of the Twin Towers and WTC7 should be
attributed.
There is nothing wacky about these beliefs. they are good and
plenty consistent with libertarianism. Dave Weigel's
o-noes-da-twoooooooofers-show got tiresome a long time ago. yes,
Dave, we know. You were 18 and impressionable and 9/11 hurt your
feelings and shook your world and you cried. Get over it. The
existence of bad terrorists doesn't make everybody else a
saint.
|5.30.08 @ 11:22AM|#
It seems like almost everone knows 9-11 was an inside job all around the world except here in the U.S. Denial can be so thick.
|5.30.08 @ 11:25AM|#
(Sorry to double post)
USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September
11
By News Report
May 29, 2008, 18:24
22 May 2008 - Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have
severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a
new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army
Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former
staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt.
Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and
many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military
and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and
architects challenging the government's story.
|5.30.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Bob, Dave W.,
Seen Sasquatch lately?
Nessie?
Been anally probed by "The Greys"?
|5.30.08 @ 12:00PM|#
I believe these US military officers are MUCH more intelligent than you, J sub D.
|5.30.08 @ 12:30PM|#
I believe these US military officers are MUCH more
intelligent than you, J sub D.
I spent 20 years operating, maintaining and repairing naval weapons
systems. From personal experience, probably not.
Nice try though.
Dave W.|5.30.08 @ 12:32PM|#
naval weapons systems
how long would they take to respond if America had been under
attack? couple hours?
|5.30.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Your errogance proves what? You SAY you're smarter than all 25 of these military officers? You know more about what's going on than the Director of the National Security Agency? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|5.30.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Until the second plane crashed into the WTC,
NO military response was even thinkable. You
obviously have little comprehension of the military decision making
process.
Perhaps you labor under the common misunderstanding that that the
US military keeps tabs on the multitudes of aircraft that are
airborne over the US on a daily basis.
They don't. They can't.
I've neither the time nor patience to describe the complexities
involved with keeping a coherent air picture in a limited area such
as the Persian Gulf, where the Air Force and Navy have considerable
resources and expectations of nefarious deeds.
Do you think that we have AWACS constantly deployed, providing
radar coverage over the whole of CONUS? Do you think we have CAPs
armed and airboure, or on ready alert, with weaons free
authorization 24/7 in peacetime?
We don't. We can't.
Do you think the military was aware of what was happening and
managed to get the thousands of personnel involved to kep
the secret about the murder of three thousand U.S. citizens? U.S.
military personnel are far, far better than that.
Are you aware that the air traffic control system does not even use
radar to track aircraft, but requires that aircraft respond to an
interrogation? Are you aware that the transponders on the hijacked
planes were turned off, rendering them invisible to air traffic
control systems?
Are you aware that this was the first time that hijacked planes
were used as weapons instead of hostage bargaining chips?
|5.30.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Bob, It isn't arrogance, it's intelligence and sanity. Things you obviously lack. Please go away. Find another hobby like ghostbusting or cryptozoology. I'm outta here.
Colin|5.30.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Truthers are like ants.
You can easily swat them down, but they never go away.
Dave W.|5.30.08 @ 1:21PM|#
O, [i]Subbie[/i]!!!
1. You didn't answer my question.
2. There certainly could have (and should have) been a military
response the moment the first hi-jacking was reported, even if
there was no shoot-down order at that time.
3. Whether or not anybody had ever use a plane as a weapon, the
idea had certainly been suggested and attempted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck
Does a specific kind of attack have to succeed before the military
can be prepared for it?
|5.30.08 @ 1:50PM|#
2. There certainly could have (and should have) been a
military response the moment the first hi-jacking was reported,
even if there was no shoot-down order at that time.
The hijacking wasn't reported until after the planes started
hitting buildings, genius.
|5.30.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Colin:
The truth is like that. It just keeps popping up.
J sub D:
"Bob, It isn't arrogance, it's intelligence and sanity"
It's insane for you to think otherwise? As I stated before, the
denial is thick. You're the type of person that has to comfort
themselves with sweet lies about their government and the world
they live in just so they feel secure when they go to sleep at
night.
And no, you're not smarter than the Director of the National
Security Agency.
No go hide under your rock.
Dave W.|5.30.08 @ 2:02PM|#
The hijacking wasn't reported until after the planes started
hitting buildings, genius.
Why not?
(and, yes, this is exactly why we need more inquiries, even if it
makes our "Weigs" Weigel re-live that horrible day when he was 18
years old and sad)
|5.30.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Dave,
Who was going to report the hijacking?
The dead pilots? The hijackers themselves?
|5.30.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Dave W:
May I?
Chris Potter:
Standard operating procedures dictate that if an FAA flight
controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking--if
radio contact is lost, if the plane's transponder goes off, or if
the plane deviates from its flight plan--the controller is to
contact a superior. If the problem cannot be fixed quickly--within
about a minute--the superior is to ask NORAD--the North American
Aerospace Defense Command--to scramble jet fighters to find out
what is going on. NORAD then issues a scramble order to the nearest
Air Force base with fighters on alert. On 9/11, all the hijacked
airliners occurred in NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector, which
is known as NEADS. So all the scramble orders would have come from
NEADS.
On 9/11, however, that did not happen. Why not? Where was the
military? The military's first answer was given immediately after
9/11 by General Richard Myers, then the Acting Chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD. They both
said, independently, that no military jets were sent up until after
the strike on the Pentagon. That strike occurred at 9:38, and yet
American Airlines Flight 11 had shown two of the standard signs of
hijacking, losing both the radio and the transponder signal, at
8:15. This means that procedures that usually result in an
interception within "10 or so minutes" had not been carried out in
80 or so minutes.
That enormous delay suggested that a stand-down order, canceling
standard procedures, must have been given. Some people started
raising this possibility.
Now who commanded Norad that day? None other than Dick
Cheney.
(he gives the stand down order)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfW3IwyXhPs
I hope this helps clear things up.
|5.30.08 @ 2:40PM|#
It's not our military's fault at all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9202883730425098020&q=cheney+9-11&ei=0ElASMWDE6HoqgPcz7jQCA
Dave W.|5.30.08 @ 2:47PM|#
It's not our military's fault at all.
well, it seems to me like some of them could have and should have
blown the whistle on Dick Cheney.
|5.30.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Secretary Norman Mineta testifies to Congress that Dick Cheney
ordered the stand down. I wish everyone saw this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7005882592257086628&q=cheney+9-11+testifies&ei=UE9ASOLJF4yQrAPGw_HYCA
|5.30.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Is it just me or do most of the posters here think that they are
intellectually superior to the truthers?
Given their propensity to engage in the ad hominem attack, I
wouldn't be too sure.
|5.30.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Questions-
(1) Who is more apt to be the kid in front of the tank in tianemen
square?
(a) a truther or
(b) a Chris Potter
(2) Who is more likely to defend himself if a cop or some other
government goon assaults them?
(a) a truther or
(b) a Gilmore
(3) Who is more likely to fear being branded as anti-semetic by Abe
Foxman?
(a) a truther or
(b) Colin
(4) Who would be more likely to resist the mark of the beast?
(a) a truther or
(b) J sub D
MattXIV|5.30.08 @ 6:54PM|#
I watched 9-11 Mysteries the other day. It was a real eye-opener. They showed some really good shots of the base of the World Trade Centers where something "i.e. thermite" had cut the beams at almost perfectly 45 degree angles. I recommend that movie.
This is particularly silly since thermite is more or less useless
for cutting horizontally. The reaction is highly exotermic, but it
proceeds slowly compared to explosives, so if you made a block of
it (you'd have to use a binder, since the Al and oxide need to be
fine powders), it would more or less just fall off then melt a hole
in the floor as the reaction proceeds. It also leaves a pretty
obvious mess of iron and aluminum oxide behind. Horizontal cuts
through steel in controlled demolitions generally use linear shaped
charges, which produce quick cuts through a plane determined by the
orientation of the charge.
The photos of beams with 45 degree cuts can easily be explained as
having been done by a torch while looking for survivors or cleaning
up the site. The fact that the tips of the flanges aren't bent from
the structure collapsing on them supports this explaination.
|5.30.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Since they can't attack the message, they have to attack the messenger. I have a positive attitude about it, though. It just gets the message out faster, that's all.
|5.30.08 @ 7:01PM|#
MattXIV:
They also use thermite/thermate to cut columns diagonally, which
reduces the resistance of the flow of the collapse from the
material above.
|5.30.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Thermite, cutting at 45 degree angles:
http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2006/07/343155.jpg
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