Holocaust Museum Shooter - Anti-semite and conspiracy theorist

Orac has already pointed out the disgusting hate behind the Holocaust museum shooter and his holocaust denial. Others around the internet, in particular Pat at Screw Loose Change have pointed out he was an example of crank magnetism. Not surprisingly, he was also a 9/11 truther (which as Pat says, "scratch a 9/11 truther and you get a holocaust denier"), loved Mel Gibson, and promoted conspiracies about how Obama isn't a US citizen.

I am particularly interested in his anti-Federal Reserve craziness, which these days, especially among the Ron Paul crowd, I've noticed seems to be a stand-in or euphemism for "Jewish bankers". I think it's no surprise that Ron Paul is the Stormfront candidate, as his theories about the gold standard and federal reserve being the source of all evil are congruent with the classic jewish/banker/protocols conspiracies usually espoused by the extreme right wing and neo-nazis. Is this the mainstreaming of an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory? Or is it just another example of crank magnetism?

Finally, this is another example of the importance of understanding and working to correct the problem of the suspicious personality. This type of thinking isn't just unscientific, historically bankrupt, irrational, and just plain crazy, it also leads to extremism as it feeds into persecutory delusions, and as people become more disenfranchised due to their insane beliefs, it eventually will cause violence. This violence, evidenced by shootings loosely directed at liberals and gays like at the Knoxville Unitarian Church, is likely being ratcheted up by the increasingly unhinged conspiracy-mongering coming from the right. Liberals are being described as destroying America, major right-wing media moguls like Andrew Breitbart are spreading conspiracies about the liberal intent to destroy the country, Glenn Beck is spouting off total gibberish about how his country is being destroyed by liberals, etc. This is only going to get worse and the paranoid conspiracy-mongering from the right is stoking the flames.

More like this

If you've hung out in forums where Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and other conspiracy theorists hang out, as I have done, one thing you'll notice is that these particular purveyors of dubious conspiracy-mongering seem to have a particular love of demonizing Jews (or, as the smarter ones tend to…
You know, it all makes a lot more sense now. Actually, I can't believe I didn't see it before. Here I was, all these years, and somehow the thought never crossed my mind, even though all the signs were right there. And then, yesterday, Tufted Titmouse showed me the light. She showed me the light…
The other day, I posted about how quacks and pseudoscientists seem to find Ron Paul's promise of "health freedom" as irresistible as moths do flame. Now it seems that Ron Paul has another most excellent endorsement to add to that of Stormfront, Dr. Mercola, and Mike Adams, not to mention to the…
I lamented how much I needed it, given the persistence of a couple of particularly annoying and obtuse antivaccinationist trolls over the last couple of weeks. Finally, it's here! We're talking the 94th Meeting of the Skeptics' Circle over at Reduce to Common Sense. It's just what I (and hopefully…

Many senior U.S. Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans also question the official account of 9/11. That does not automatically mean they endorse "holocaust denial" theories.

An article reporting the concerns about the official account of 9/11 of more than 40 veterans of the NSA, CIA, FBI, U.S. State Dept, and U.S. Military Intelligence can be read at http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Articles

I noticed that two of the principals for this website are physicians.

I encourage you to visit Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth at http://mp911truth.org

The group was publicly announced on Feb. 24, 2009. Numerous physicians and other medical professionals have already signed the petition calling for a new investigation of 9/11, including:

Jonathan Weisbuch, MD, MPH - Former Chief Health Officer for the States of Wyoming and North Dakota, as well as Los Angeles County, CA, and Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale)

Mary Ellen Bradshaw, MD â Past President, American Association of Public Health Physicians

Douglas Nixon Everingham, MB BS â Former Minister for Health, Australia. Former Vice President, World Health Assembly. Former MP, Australia

Joanna Santa Barbara, MB BS, FRANZCP, FRCP(C) â Past President, Physicians for Global Survival, the Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

Meridale Dewar, MD, CCFP, FCFP â Past President, Physicians for Global Survival, the Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

Richard Tuft, MBBS, FRCS, FFRad, FRCR â Diagnostic Radiologist. Past Member of the Board of Directors and Past Chairman, Finance Committee and Private Practice Committee, South African Medical Association. Past President, Radiological Society of South Africa 1995 - 2007. Chairman, 24th International Congress of Radiology (2006).

Carlos Vassaux, MD â Founder and Past President of the Guatemalan affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). Former cardiovascular researcher, Harvard Medical School. Former Fellow, Lown Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

This violence, evidenced by shootings loosely directed at liberals and gays like at the Knoxville Unitarian Church, is likely being ratcheted up by the increasingly unhinged conspiracy-mongering coming from the right.

I live in Knoxville, and yes, growing up in the Bible Belt (about half an hour away from Knox) teaches that lesson in style. Crank magnetism is incredibly strong in the backwoods areas and very small towns. In towns and cities in the 1000+ range, moral panics come and go regularly, though most people are (sensible-ish) about it.

But, so many here are alarmingly susceptible and immediately receptive of extraordinary wingnuttiness. People here, even in East Tennessee, do not tend to smile at the Klan (though the backwoods areas are quite friendly to the Klan, if not the Klan), but they still hold "big government liberals" and the ACLU in equal or lower opinion, if not agents of satan themselves. It's far too easy to find large groups of people who think that the UN is the arm of the antichrist and the endtimes are "just around the corner" (as usual).

Oh, and

Alan Miller@1 - Many senior U.S. Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans also question the official account of 9/11. That does not automatically mean they endorse "holocaust denial" theories.

Look at the older posts concerning crank magnetism. There is a marked (and quite strong) tendency for cranks to believe or propound multiple forms of quackery.

We can make a testable prediction! Let's take that list of 41 current/former intelligence workers and see how many also embrace other conspiracy theories (out of the 41 who embrace 911 conspiracies at all). But then again, I really don't care, so you give it a shot, Alan.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

The above article is itself "gibberish", to borrow from its rant. To paint with a broad brush invites inaccuracy. One can be against the power of intrusive, big-spending and overarching government and still be a nice, decent, intelligent person.

Get real.

To compare legitimate questions people have about the "official" version of events concerning the attacks of September 11th to individuals who deny the Holocaust is not only irresponsible, it is an outrageous and absolute lie. That would be like me suggesting that just because you are of Middle Eastern descent you must like Bin Laden and are working with any number of terrorist organizations. One rotten apple does spoil the whole bunch, eh?

These intellectually light weight attempts to link those with legitimate questions concerning government complicity in 9/11 to extremist elements are what got us into the trouble that we're in in the first place! Look at all the "detainees" currently being held in any number of secret prisons just because of the "guilt based on suspicion" idea. What is this, Nazi Germany? Oh wait, I used the word "NAZI"...that must mean I am a white power, cross burning, tobacco chewing, sheep screwing, redneck, gun toting, jew hating, black hanging racist, right?

Where is the responsible journalism? Lets just call this person what he truly is: a frothing and obviously disturbed racist. Just because he may have believed that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks does not mean that his hatred evolved out of that concept!

By _______ <--… (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Actually, had any of you truthers bothered to read any of this blog, you would see that what we are discussing is "crank magnetism", the tendency of people who believe one insane idea to believe many insane things.

Of course, expecting conspiracy nuts to actually read would be a bit presumptuous of me...

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Mmm, it is interesting how people quickly jump on to defend their own "beliefs" while ignoring the main point of this post that is to point out how suspicious personality types are becoming a rising danger to this country, especially with the economy crumbling all over the place.

It is quite clear that attacks such as these will continue to increase and the mad ravings of far-right lunatics will keep inciting people to violence and social unrest. Across the sea, it is already happening: the British National Party just elected two members to the European Parliament and their popularity is increasing. It is just a matter of time before we start partying like it is 1929.

To the unnamed nuttiness that is #6,

(unnamed) - To compare legitimate questions people have about the "official" version of events concerning the attacks of September 11th to individuals who deny the Holocaust is not only irresponsible, it is an outrageous and absolute lie.

Have you neglected to follow the links in his post?

(unnamed) - That would be like me suggesting that just because you are of Middle Eastern descent you must like Bin Laden and are working with any number of terrorist organizations. One rotten apple does spoil the whole bunch, eh?

Fantastic, you seem to be equating an increasingly documented tendency referred to as crank magnetism with racial profiling. Idiot.

(unnamed) - These intellectually light weight attempts to link those with legitimate questions concerning government complicity in 9/11 to extremist elements are what got us into the trouble that we're in in the first place! Look at all the "detainees" currently being held in any number of secret prisons just because of the "guilt based on suspicion" idea.

Legitimate questions? I'm sorry, but a question is not legitimate if you ask it after receiving legitimate answer and 9/11 conspiracism is NOT composed of legitimate questions, but emptyheadedness and denialism.

(unnamed) - Where is the responsible journalism? Lets just call this person what he truly is: a frothing and obviously disturbed racist. Just because he may have believed that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks does not mean that his hatred evolved out of that concept!

Nobody says that. Firstly, because that would be impossible, considering this guy has been at this stuff for years before 9/11. What is being claimed is that there is a definite tendency for people who believe in a given conspiracy theory to believe in multiple conspiracy theories, related or not.

Also,

MarkH - This type of thinking isn't just unscientific, historically bankrupt, irrational, and just plain crazy, it also leads to extremism as it feeds into persecutory delusions, and as people become more disenfranchised due to their insane beliefs, it eventually will cause violence.

Beliefs inform actions. Conspiratorial irrationality is a fantastic catalyst for violence. Since, as MarkH noted, conspiracy nonsense was used by the Nazis to gain popularity and justify genocide. Please see: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which itself serves as a model of crank magnetism (masons, etc). Further, there are still people who think it is authentic (in original form, like Neonazis), as well as those who substitute "jews" for "illuminati."

Point being, conspiracy theorists, despite their frequent painting of tragic, persecuted self-portraits, are not harmless, especially when acting under the influence of crank magnetism.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

So, a question to ponder about crank magnetism: does it occur because there is a certain type of person who is attracted to crank theories (possibly some form of paranoid personality disorder), or is there something about picking up a crank theory that makes you more susceptible to additional theories?

I wonder, are there certain RSS subscriptions these cranks use to find and attack people who talk about them? They spawn so fast after any article, its quite funny. No matter what you talk about, it seems within a few minutes that specific group charges in here.

By Evinfuilt (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

This article seems to me to be a perfect example of "expert" class bigotry.

Here is a man who stands on his high throne and writes some nonsense about crank magnetic personalities and then hides within this pseudo-intellectual drivel his own pseudo-scientific ideas. Here he sits with the full belief that his own "expertise" is the sole necessary justification for the his wild claims.

When people try to refute his foolishness: In come the tin soldiers magnetically, and somewhat ironically, driven to his radical ideas. These people, with little understanding of any facts on either side of the debate will cling to this mans presumed intelligence that they may have a little intellectual authority of their own.

Here and now I defy the nonsense written by Mr. Mark H. It is neither scientific, nor intelligent, it is bigoted and anti-intellectual and finally it is dishonest. Those who flock to this mans banner are doing themselves a grave disservice.

By KingTruffle (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

@Evinfuilt

I'm sure there's just some guy with a blog who becomes aware of other blogs that mention 9/11, the moon landing, HIV, the steelers winning the super bowl, whatever. And then it is just like what happens when PZ sees a poll that he doesn't care for. He sends his drones out to scuttle it. And then they go off and do whatever it is they do, which in this case is quite entertaining.

KingTruffle@13: Here he sits with the full belief that his own "expertise" is the sole necessary justification for the his wild claims.

Actually, no. I don't think that's what MarkH has been arguing. Funnily, your drivel about "expert" class bigotry/pseudo-intellectualism/anti-intellectualism has some markedly missing details, such as an actual example of what MarkH is doing oh so unscientifically and an explanation of why that is, or alternatively, what is incorrect. You could start by reviewing some of the recent posts. And further,

When people try to refute his foolishness: In come the tin soldiers magnetically, and somewhat ironically, driven to his radical ideas.

your definition of a refutation seems to include posting irrelevant links, bandwagon appeals, and personal attacks such as your own, with the occasional sockpuppet.

Here and now I defy the nonsense written by Mr. Mark H. It is neither scientific, nor intelligent, it is bigoted and anti-intellectual and finally it is dishonest.

Yes, you defy it, but you do not consider or address it with any honest critique, and that's the subject matter of the denialism blog. Which fortunately, by the choice of subject matter, tends to attract a wide range of samples to study. But please, go on ranting and raving about "expert class bigotry" all you like, but I hope that you will understand why I might not take you seriously.

If you try specific critique and discussion, then we can hone the points into finer detail.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

First, King Mushroom, it's *Dr.* Mark H. Basic politeness decrees that you use the man's earned title, however much it grates on you.

Second, if you could be bothered to read, the idea of crank magnetism is fairly well documented. You whine about trying to "refute his foolishness" and then completely fail to do any actual refuting. I'm guessing because you don't actually have an argument that didn't come from unmentionable orifices.

Seriously, people! Learn to read for comprehension! It's not that difficult a skill. Most people manage it by third or fourth grade...

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0609/The_Ron_Paul_revolution_.h…

Ron Paul isn't a crank, and he isn't going anywhere. It would help if the people that write the blogs on this site would steer clear of politics if you know nothing about the subject, which it's obvious you don't.

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=198877&t=0100761571429021…

So, I guess what you're implying is that most of Congress is anti-Jew! Brilliant!

Ron Paul *is* a crank, and one with a profound disregard for the Constitution. Ideology trumps rationality, right?

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

An excellent rebuttal, Lance. I was most impressed with all those supporting facts and the objective point of view.

"The group was publicly announced on Feb. 24, 2009. Numerous physicians and other medical professionals have already signed the petition calling for a new investigation of 9/11, including:"
Yes, because doctors are excellent sources of information on engineering and physics and clearly are better positioned to explain what happened on September 11 than are actual researchers. What a load of shit.

"Ron Paul isn't a crank, and he isn't going anywhere."
No, Ron Paul is a deluded friend of racists and is armed with some of the most ridiculous ideas about policy and money to be found. I sincerely hope he is "going nowhere".

Dr Ron Paul is unfortunately my Congressman... He is by definition a crank just for his alt-med tendencies, and his conspiracy theories that he allows to gather at his locations show how much it builds.

Yes, he is a wonder to behold in his outspokenness for stopping some of the most stupid moves by the Republican party lately, but that doesn't make him perfect. He's actually a perfect example of crank magnetism, he starts with a couple small things and it just builds up over time.

He may not be a racist but I think They Might Be Giants summed up his problem succinctly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gGCmlpF8gQ

By Evinfuilt (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

"one with a profound disregard for the Constitution"

And you have proof of this where?

By Brian Miller (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

And you have proof of this where?

His actions.
His speeches.
His support for Dominionist theocrats.

Any other questions?

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

So he's insane because you don't agree with him? Compelling.

That isn't proof, Lance, sorry.

By Brian Miller (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

No, to a Ron Paul fan, it wouldn't be. Those goalposts just keep on moving, don't they?

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

You don't even mention where the goalposts are! You've listed no specific examples, you've think he's insane because 'he is'. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and you haven't even bothered to say anything beyond disconnected warblings.

LanceR@27 - No, to a Ron Paul fan, it wouldn't be. Those goalposts just keep on moving, don't they?

You're a little early on the invocation of a moving goalpost, LanceR. But, the main constitutional disagreement I would have with Mr. Paul is on his interpretation of church and state, particularly some of his measures which remove any protection for Atheists (We the People Act). His emphasis on the founding fathers seems to largely end whenever he runs into the wall between church and state. And yes, as LancerR said,

His support for Dominionist theocrats.

is an issue. Radical Reconstructionists and Dominionists advocate the virtual elimination of federal government (and protective measures of the separation of church and state) in order to replace democratic institutions with religious institutions, such as churches. In other words, the clergy would again assume the mantle of state, and states would be "free" to remove hard won protections for the rights of minorities. His opinion on Lawrence vs. Texas is, to me, not anything to do with fears over "bench legislation". Otherwise, I find a lot of merit in many of Paul's positions, such as ending the drug war and privacy/personal rights issues (such as voting against the Patriot Act).
I have many disagreements with Paul's ideas, but I'm going to wait before I place the "crank" label on him. Certainly, there is crank magnetism around Paul, but that's by virtue of his radical stances and their (possibly) agreement with other, more absurdly wacky characters, such as dominionists and racists.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Thanks, AN... I do tend to jump the gun sometimes.

That said, I'm not inclined to be as patient with Ron Paul as you. His stances on "state's rights", to me, shows a profound disregard for the Constitution he is sworn to protect. And his dominionist leanings REALLY worry me.

Of course, he is better than most Republicans on some issues. And by FAR better than Perot or Buchanan.

BTW, who ever said he was "insane"? I said he was a "crank", which has a very different connotation. Do try to read for comprehension, Nadorn.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Oh, sorry. One correction; state sovereignty, not state's rights. A distinction without a difference, IMO.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Thanks, AN... I do tend to jump the gun sometimes.

Happens. We're used to the deepest levels of wackery-quackery-doo, so it almost becomes a reflex as a result of being a guaranteed next step. But, I'm willing to be patient with Paul since I must keep in mind that I really haven't picked over his positions in great detail. Then again, with Paul (and I say this to his credit), he has been quite consistent, like him or not, which makes the process a bit easier.

That being said, I've no tolerance for the theocratic or their enablers. Ron Paul seems to have little patience for secularism, and his stances on creationism in public schools bother me greatly.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Don't know about Paul, but as for comments by those thinking that it should be nearly illegal to question the "holocaust", I think the things that people aren't allowed to question should be the first to get the most complete and thorough questions. I have never seen a documentary truly questioning anything about the Holocaust as no one is allowed to do this without some Jewish organization attempting to make you feel dumb, guilty, or in some countries jailed for your thoughts. There isn't even much evidence to support the purported numbers mentioned. Heck, hardly anyone ever hears a translation of what Hitler was actually saying because of the thought police - only a few selected sound bites on rare late night history channel shows. Now this same sort of thought police group is attempting to target groups they don't agree with that have found some freedom on the internet.

I don't know how denying 6 million Jews were killed is a crazy thing. How is that crazy if there are no records, no videos, no real proof other than "proof" provided or invented by Jewish organizations (to get a "homeland" that even the bible says they stole). They didn't even really seem to have time or space to accomplish this task if you look at it, plus Zionist Jews may even be to blame. It is crazy like questioning that the sun goes around the Earth -only really it is less crazy than that. It seems that particular number of Jews was invented if you look into it, and was invented to help invent Israel - it also appears in hindsight this invention of Israel was the reason for WW1 and WW2 really. Israel is also a key reason it is important for Americans to take the bible literally, and why the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over by fundamentalists that promoted a war in Iraq (taken over by a fundamentalist group in Texas tied to Bush and certain Israeli organizations apparently). It is easy to see and the most obvious center of trouble throughout time seems centered around that god forsaken place. I'm really not surprised more and more people are getting mad at the sort of Zionist Jewish people that support Israel when you turn on NPR and every other thing is some dramatic story about some one legged Zionist Jewish lesbian who escaped something or the other, or had a third cousin that was near the "Holocaust" and so on. While at the same time this sort of Zionist clique produces various racist propaganda in the form of movies, magazines, etc... that attempts to bash blondes (this goes back to being bitter about the blondes that ran Egypt, Greece and so on, I mean get over it.) Then they pump themselves up every chance they get (Watch Madagascar for a very cartoon version of this, can't miss it (actually there should be a website dedicated to examples of Zionist supported racism in various media.)) Zionist type Jews have become the most blatantly racist group of murderers on the planet. What went on in Germany was likely not killing by Hitler as much as planned editing of certain Jews by Zionist types. Why would anyone be surprised someone is still mad at them, or question their facts. Come on their salesmen right? The Zionist are pretty good salesmen. I mean look at Jesus, son of God huh? WOW, he's everywhere and you walk with him everywhere you go and it was very important that he was put on a stick. You can't see him, but you have to have faith he's there. If many people start to question that, or the Jews, then that is a sign the end of the world is near and you need to take up arms to get in the fight if you believe in protecting your bible - convenient. I mean really? How is it really important that he was put on a stick to die? How does that really help anything? How can the bible be taken too seriously when it is obviously inaccurate about things a God (as the humans that wrote the bible try to describe God (((The word God is a first attempt to get at the true meaning of the word REASON)))) should know all these things? How is it wrong to question a Zionist type Jew, or heck, a regular Jew, Buddhist, or Baptist for that matter? I think this line of attack on those that question Israel will certainly lead to more question than have ever been raised before. Here is a site where some Jewish folks think Israel is nothing but trouble. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust-zionism.htm

OK, that's all the anti-Israel, anti-christian, conspiracy type crazy fluff I can stir up for today, and I hope you all have fun with it. Oh, and it does often make you cranky when you think you're surrounded by idiots, and suckers. but it usually doesn't make you cranky enough to go shooting some random person - that's just crazy, not cranky.

Heck, hardly anyone ever hears a translation of what Hitler was actually saying because of the thought police - only a few selected sound bites on rare late night history channel shows.

Are you joking? Directly Hitler or otherwise, there is a ton of stuff related to the Holocaust from Nazi Propaganda, even if you rule out the material that might only refer to driving Jews and minorities out of countries or into second-class ghettos. First, they were happy to just drive Jews out of the country and incite (and participate) in riots against them, vandalizing shops, confiscating property, and violence in general. As early as 1939, we have

Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe! (Hitler in a speech from 1/30/39, taken from http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/hitler-19390130.shtml ).

The speech itself was featured in the even more telling propaganda film, The Eternal Jew. No, the "Final Solution" to the Jewish question was enacted, and approximately 6 million Jews died through systematic extermination. Do we have a video for each death? No. But we do have lists of names turned over to the Nazis by churches and other repositories. We have footage of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. We have the stories of former Nazi soldiers and survivors.

They didn't even really seem to have time or space to accomplish this task if you look at it, plus Zionist Jews may even be to blame. It is crazy like questioning that the sun goes around the Earth -only really it is less crazy than that.

What? You do realize that in many cases, the deportation of Jews to concentration camps took priority over the war effort itself. Soldiers traveling to the front via train were delayed, because trainloads of minorities were being shipped back to concentration camps. Further, the concentration camps do not even comprise the entire story. Have you heard of the Hoefle Telegram, which numbers the deaths in four camps at over 1.2mil by 1942? And this is but one of thousands of documents. If facists can do anything, they can keep paperwork. And "less crazy" than Copernican theory my ass. Not close, not convincing, not even for a second. Copernicus examined the sky and found the Ptolemaic model insufficient, changing our view of the solar system based on a parsimonious reexamination of the evidence. You and other denialists examine theories with mountains of evidence and cry "conspiracy!" And with Holocaust denialism, the evidence, paperwork, film, documentation, train schedules, speeches, reports, and anecdotes from both sides of the war are dismissed as "manufactured by zionists!" or some other rubbish out of the same muddled, incoherent racial ideology that led to the Holocaust in the first place. No, you're the opposite of Copernicus. He examined evidence and proposed a superior explanation, and history would vindicate him. You dismiss evidence and invent a brand new history motivated by conspiracism and racism. Idiot. Don't compare yourself to Copernicus or any honest man of science or research, because you are not honestly researching and inventing bullshit of the most inferior kind to match your fucked up ideology.

Ok, I'm going to stop for a moment... You lost me completely at the Zionist jealousy over blond Egyptian rulers. I think there are serious problems concerning Israel's treatment of the palestinians, but you are way the hell off into the deep end. Clearly, addressing the factual vacuity of your post could fill a novel alone, without ever having to bother with criticizing the insanely overblown conspiracism and depraved racism.

but it usually doesn't make you cranky enough to go shooting some random person - that's just crazy, not cranky.

No, you're well into the deepest end of crazy. Do you want to know why Holocaust denialism is not tolerated in some countries? Because it is the worst form of pseudo-intellectualism and anti-semitism, the type that produced the Holocaust in the first place. Sure, question whatever you like, but you're only shitting yourself if you think you play the role of the skeptic. No, conspiracism and wacky racial BS about blond Egyptians are not the product of asking questions, but of delusional manufacture.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

"His stances on "state's rights", to me, shows a profound disregard for the Constitution"

Ever heard of the 10th amendment?

I've never agreed with his views on creationism, either, but he repeatedly said during his campaign that religion has no place in politics or lawmaking. Last I heard, Obama mentioned Christ more than GW bush ever did.

Ron Paul is bright enough to realize that it's probably only through state's rights that the ending of the wars on drugs and terror, outrageous and ineffective federal spending and a smaller role for the Federal Reserve will ever happen. And I never moved the goalpost, Lance - anyone with more than a high school education knows what providing proof actually is, and you didn't provide any.

By Brian Miller (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Let me clear that up - you didn't provide any on your first response. We partially agree on your second response.

Also, I wanted to add, that a lot of the "crank" talk on the blogs on this website seems to be of the "if you don't follow the herd, there is something wrong with you" mentality. That's pretty sad. Seeing as how we rarely have a politician in office that speaks the truth, at least knowing where one actually stands should count for a hell of a lot, even if you have your disagreements with him.

By Brian Miller (not verified) on 11 Jun 2009 #permalink

Yes, I've heard of the 10th amendment. You ever heard of the 14th?

Like it or not, the federal government takes precedence over the states. By amendment, law, precedent and custom. That is the only way to keep 50 varied states together as a single nation. Anything that weakens that arrangement could lead to secession and the Balkanization of America.

What is a crank? Try reading the links at the top of this blog. You know, reading for comprehension? Denialism is not just "whoever disagrees with me".

I wasn't aware that I needed proof for an off-topic comment on a blog post. I'll be sure to watch for your goalposts next time.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 12 Jun 2009 #permalink

how did dav the dishonest hater get access to a computer? what a repugnant post.

So ron paul

* voted against the civil rights act of 1964
* allowed (late 1980s, early 1990s) the publication of numerous racists articles in a newsletter published under his name
* made these comments:
""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992"

isn't a racist? spare me. this alone is reason to ignore him: his foolish ideas about isolationism and a new gold standard are the icings on the cake.

Not surprisingly, he was also a 9/11 truther (which as Pat says, "scratch a 9/11 truther and you get a holocaust denier"), loved Mel Gibson, and promoted conspiracies about how Obama isn't a US citizen.

"Pat" got it backwards here. For the quote to apply to this situation, it should say, "Scratch a holocaust denier, you get a 9/11 truther."

But is either statement true? What fraction of 9/11 truthers are holocaust deniers? What fraction of holocaust deniers are 9/11 truthers? How about the opposite: what fraction of 9/11 official story defenders are holocaust deniers? What fraction of holocaust deniers are 9/11 official stories defenders?

How about this: What fraction of 9/11 official stories defenders competently address the issues raised?

By John M 307 (not verified) on 12 Jun 2009 #permalink

How about this: What fraction of 9/11 official stories defenders competently address the issues raised?

Or better, how many 9/11 truthers actually raise a competent question about the fall of the towers instead of saying "VERTICAL FALL=CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!"?

Particularly when it is quite rare to find a truther who even knows how to calculate grossly simplified scalar quantities like force and potential energy, much less a tremendously complicated problem like force distribution/energy transfer v. carrying capacity in a collapsing skyscraper, and yet almost every truther I've met claims that the towers could not have fallen the way they did. No, instead they usually point to a picture of sparks and churning dust and bleat on about thermite.

In my not-so-uncommon experience, Truthers don't ask questions, since they ignore the answer or say "not possible" and move on to some other invented problem. The so-called "questions" are formalities, merely openers for the truthers to rehearse their own misconceptions. For people who have so many "questions", they certainly have enough answers.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 12 Jun 2009 #permalink

I have some objections to your article.

1 - As you point out conspiracies do in fact exist (Quoting you "unhinged conspiracy-mongering coming from the right. Liberals are being described as destroying America, major right-wing media moguls like Andrew Breitbart are spreading conspiracies about the liberal intent to destroy the country" If that is not you asserting that conspiracies among [some] conservatives exist, then nothing is a conspiracy.) Conspiracies do in fact influence events,and some are as you point out "cranks" in every sense of the word and as a rule do nothing more than cause occasional tragedies as the shooting at the Holocaust museum. It does not however follow that all conspiracies are by "cranks" nor that all conspiracies are ineffective. One can argue that one of the most effective conspiracies of all time was that of the Free Masons to promote democracy and science.

2- You are engaging is political tactics that are in fact "crank", specifically that of smearing. You say for example that "I am particularly interested in his anti-Federal Reserve craziness, which these days, especially among the Ron Paul crowd, I've noticed seems to be a stand-in or euphemism for 'Jewish bankers'."

Regarding that, first you use emotionally loaded words to describe a large political movement seeking accountability in a powerful American economic institution that has the force of law to back it up and enormous economic and political power. That is not obviously "crazy", and your statements to the effect that it is bears more than a passing resemblance to Nazi statements about "Jewish Bolshevism" to link all jews to communists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

That is dishonest and it is not scientific.

It is 100% possible that the FED is not the optimal financial institution to run the monetary system of the USA. A Nobel Prize winning economist has argued in serious academic works that the FED, and mismanagement of it was one of it was one of the primary causes of the the Great Depression of the 1930s, as in that without the FED things would not have been so bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpPNjkeL-Ks

This position is at least in part widely held by a large number of academic economists, including the current FED Chairman by the way.

While indeed the shooter was a crank and obviously had crank ideas, that does not make all his ideas crank, and it is unscientific and dishonest to assert that.

By Alfred Montestruc (not verified) on 12 Jun 2009 #permalink

Anonymous: You may be right about many truthers, only asking questions rhetorically and ignoring the answers. There are numerous actual crackpots in the truther community. And of course, nothing as tall, wide, and massive as the twin towers could possibly fall anything other than vertically. Right now, I'm agnostic about the controlled demolition issue. I was thinking of different issues when I wrote that post, and was writing generically.

To nitpick: I used the word "issue" rather than "question" in my post. When I post about the Popular Mechanics whopper, I'm not asking any question:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?pa…

The issue here is Popular Mechanics's absurd claim (incompetence or propaganda) made in defense of the official 9/11 story. Let's just see someone competently defend PM's statement. (That simply can't happen.) More hopefully, an official story defender might begin to recognize that something is very wrong, and perhaps be just a little more open to my allegation that defense of the official stories is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

In this case, the most common response is dead silence. Usually when I've posted about a 9/11 issue and actually receive a response, the responder just denounces me without addressing the content, or at best has only glazed over what I've written.

I'm not accusing you, by the way.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

Actually, John, modern ATC radar does not actually detect planes. It checks transponders. There are too many other objects causing too many false positives for such a vital system to worry about. When a plane loses or turns off its transponder, it disappears as far as the ATC radars are concerned.

Of course, anyone could discover this with just a little effort. But a Troofer doesn't want to hear the truth, just comforting pap that fits his preconceived notions.

Lies, incompetence and propaganda? Sounds like the troofer movement to me.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

LanceR: You'd better recheck your facts. The notion is idiotic that ATC can be bamboozled simply by a plane turning off its transponder. If a plane turns off its transponder, that's a sign of something wrong, and procedures are in place to address it. The FAA has had decades of experience.

Does ATC, for example, mark a radar blip in red and notify controllers of adjacent cells, when a transponder goes off? Does some kind of alarm go off, leading controllers to search out and find what happened? Won't they go find a radar that uses an actual radar signal? Or won't they use nearby aircraft to find the disappeared airplane? Won't they notify NORAD within the next few minutes, if they can't address it immediately?

Also, "4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors" refers to the entire US. Popular Mechanics is telling us that if a plane disappears in New York, they have to look through the entire US to find it within the next few minutes. An airplane that flies halfway across the US in five minutes is in orbit.

If you bother to check the official story, ATC tracked every off-course plane except Flight 77. They tracked Flight 11 directly into the building, for example.

A rogue aircraft in the country's busiest air corridors is a disaster waiting to occur, and ATC is going to do something about it. Popular Mechanics used a thought-stopping propaganda technique of taking an opponents phrase ("busiest air corridors") to preempt the obvious argument.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

Regarding "9/11 Truth"

1 - The official mode of failure of the buildings is consistent the engineering and physics I know (I hold a PE in two states, BS, & MS in engineering and have done a lot of structural engineering work over the last ~15 years or so). You do not need to "melt" steel to change (reduce) the modulus of elasticity of it a lot, and that added to the load it is under controls when a given structural member of given geometry made of steel will buckle. As in heat the steel up, and the force it takes to buckle it drops a lot.

2 - While demolition of the buildings is *possible* in conjunction with the deliberate ramming by aircraft, it is not needed for the buildings to fail as they were observed to. The jet fuel fires would have done that just fine.

By Alfred Montestruc (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

Note for the record: I was also Anonymous@40

John M@42 - The issue here is Popular Mechanics's absurd claim (incompetence or propaganda) made in defense of the official 9/11 story. Let's just see someone competently defend PM's statement. (That simply can't happen.) More hopefully, an official story defender might begin to recognize that something is very wrong, and perhaps be just a little more open to my allegation that defense of the official stories is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

In many issues, Popular Mechanics may be safely filed under incompetence, so I wont take on the mantle of an apologist for PM. But, by some of the other points in the article, the claim that response counters (validly or not) holds no water for the conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure how valid the 4,500 blip number is, and I'm having trouble locating PM's source for that number. Are you aware of where they got the number (if from anywhere)?

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

John M@44 - If you bother to check the official story, ATC tracked every off-course plane except Flight 77. They tracked Flight 11 directly into the building, for example.

A rogue aircraft in the country's busiest air corridors is a disaster waiting to occur, and ATC is going to do something about it. Popular Mechanics used a thought-stopping propaganda technique of taking an opponents phrase ("busiest air corridors") to preempt the obvious argument.

In response to the "they tracked flight 11 directly into the building," PopMech notes (same page you linked) (also answers the question on whether or not "ATC can be bamboozled"):

...at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking.

Also, they didn't rely on the "blip number" argument to preempt the argument about fighter interception, but it is addressed under the last claim on the page you linked.

(In response to claim that intercepts are routine)
PM - In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM.

But, as for the 4,500 blips in the air corridor, I'm having trouble locating a relevant statistic. So, I won't defend PopMech on that one unless I find a relevant source to confirm it. If they're wrong on that, it still has little bearing on the question of jets actually intercepting the craft. My experience mostly concerns dealing with demolition nuts. There, we can talk science. On these items, we reduce ourselves to "what if" and "could they have" games, which I tend to find rather uninteresting. But John, do let me know if you find a relevant statistic concerning the amount of airway traffic in the area of the planned flight paths on 9/11.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

"There are numerous actual crackpots in the truther community"

needs fixing:

"Everyone in the truther community is a crackpot"

Sorry: when you prefer your own foolish ideas about what happened, and look to people who are not engineers/scientists for your explanations about what happened, and ignore the physics when it's explained to you, you are a crackpot.

dean: The standard response of the pseudoscientist: respond with insults and ignore the argument.

AgnosticNews: A far better response, thank you.

The 4500 number: The Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" also has the 4500 number, explicitly telling us that there were 4500 planes over the continental US. (p. 17) The note (p. 155) says that they get the number from interviews with FAA and NTSB persons. The book tells a somewhat different story than the article passage that I quoted. (But I refuse to let them off the hook for the article because of that. I've seen no indication that they've renounced that part of the article.)

Of course, I had figured out 4500 aircraft had to refer to the entire US (probably excluding Alaska and Hawaii, possibly including southern Canada) before I ever looked at that book. Just the order of magnitude involved -- a sense of numbers -- and my own experience flying commercial aircraft (as passenger) led me to the conclusion. The most I've ever seen in the sky was driving away from LAX at night, and seeing two whole chains of aircraft approaching to land. Perhaps I saw more than ten aircraft; I didn't count.

Away from busy airports, aircraft are far apart most of the time. (Minimum distances: about one mile vertical or five miles horizontal during cruise -- I picked them from the regulations somewhere.) Occasionally, I've listened to the chatter between pilots and ATC, and occasionally I would hear something about "traffic" to the right, and an order to turn left (say) ten degrees. And a single aircraft would fly by shortly after.

Almost everywhere, less than ten aircraft fly within a twenty (probably a fifty) mile radius. 4500 identical blips could only refer to something on the scale of the entire (continental) US.

The Phantom Flight 11: PM repeats the 9/11 Commission's account of the Phantom Flight 11, as well as other false reports of hijackings. Okay, perhaps the FAA was bamboozled. But it would take much more than merely turning off a transponder to bamboozle the FAA. The 9/11 Commission doesn't discuss why the FAA was bamboozled, if it really was.

ATC did watch Flight 11, at the very least to Manhattan where it disappeared from radar, and without the benefit of the transponder:

Two F-15 jets were reportedly dispatched from Otis Air Force Base. Just before or after the military planes got off the ground, however, the controllers report they lost site of Flight 11's radar signal over Manhattan. The controller who had handled the plane from the beginning of the ordeal was stunned.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html (Two days after 9/11.)

"I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down," said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. But it was only when the television pictures of a burning World Trade Center tower came on, that he knew why the flight had disappeared from his scope.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130125&page=1

I don't know whether the Phantom Flight 11 story is real or phony, or how it happened. The 9/11 Commission doesn't discuss anything about how it happened. For all I know, the Phantom Flight 11 might have resulted from the confusion of conducting hijack exercises (with phony radar blips and military planes playing the part of hijacked aircraft). Or it may have been a fabrication. Or it may have been real.

The 9/11 Commission doesn't mention hijack exercises conducted on 9/11, except for one passage (p. 20): "NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?" "FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.^116" Note 116 tells us that "We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise" -- a patent falsehood.

Vanity Fair discussed the NORAD Tapes. There is quite a bit of chatter about whether the first hijacking was real or exercise:

Powell's questionâ"Is this real-world or exercise?"âis heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"âsimulated scenariosâinto play for the day's training exercise.

.

.

.

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

The 9/11 Commission says this about the Phantom Flight 11 (p. 34 of the PDF version):

The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate
accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

Either the Phantom Flight 11 story is correct, and FAA and DoD persistently lied for the first two and a half years, or the Phantom Flight 11 story is a fabrication. In either case, my earlier statement holds: the official story (or stories) is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

Payne Stewart's Plane: This is another propaganda tactic by PM. Everyone knows about the interception of Payne Stewart's plane, and this interception is contrasted with the 9/11 response. So PM tells us it was the only civilian aircraft interception the decade before 9/11. They also only mention the interception 80 minutes later, and ignore earlier interceptions by F-15 jets.

An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000519173211/http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26…

By John M 307 (not verified) on 13 Jun 2009 #permalink

John M 307: that's the only response your type deserves. It may be human nature to believe that things like September 11 can't happen because of the actions of a few people and small organization, but when complete investigations show that's exactly what happened, you slip into the realm of the deluded to tie together unrelated items and take things out of context (as your final post has done) and then push your favorite idea as a way of showing how much smarter you are than the experts in the field. Respect for you and people like you? No. Disgust and disdain? Yes, a whole lot of it.

Of course, I had figured out 4500 aircraft had to refer to the entire US (probably excluding Alaska and Hawaii, possibly including southern Canada) before I ever looked at that book. Just the order of magnitude involved -- a sense of numbers -- and my own experience flying commercial aircraft (as passenger) led me to the conclusion. The most I've ever seen in the sky was driving away from LAX at night, and seeing two whole chains of aircraft approaching to land. Perhaps I saw more than ten aircraft; I didn't count.

Ok, hold on... so your condemnation of the 4,500 number is based on loose intuition? This will not do. Also, I'm still not entirely sure why you are so focused on this figure, which isn't important or necessary since regardless of the number of "blips", the FAA was clearly bamboozled. And even if they were not bamboozled, it is still not standard practice to do a jet intercept. Honestly, I do not know why the 4,500 number is that important to you, but I would still require a relevant statistic before I dismiss it (or defend it), not intuition. But, in any case, I still consider it irrelevant to the validity of a conspiracy theory. It sounds like you have more of a problem with PopMech, in which case, you should try the editors.

By AgnosticNews (not verified) on 14 Jun 2009 #permalink

AgnosticNews: Have you forgotten my objection to PM's statement? PM is telling us that ATC had to search the entire continental US for a plane that had disappeared in New York a few minutes earlier.

PM's book confirmed my "loose intuition," that 4500 radar blips had to cover the entire continental US -- did you miss that somehow? A "loose intuition" by someone capable of rough estimations is better than anything from someone lacking a sense of size or scale. A rough "order of magnitude" estimation is sufficient to rule out certain claims as idiotic.

Innumeracy has been a huge problem in the US for decades.

My problem with Popular Mechanics is that they produced a propaganda article defending the official story. As I said before, the official story is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

dean: Once we reach a point where you can't or won't read with literate comprehension, you've become the incompetent.

If you can point out a complete investigation of 9/11 that's been honestly and competently done, tell me. (Don't cite the 9/11 Commission Report.)

By John M 307 (not verified) on 14 Jun 2009 #permalink

Let's not misunderstand further. The issue is, what did PM mean by 4500 identical radar blips (regardless of the accuracy of that number)? That number could only refer to a huge region comparable to the continental US. You don't think for a moment that PM is telling us that 4500 identical radar blips are within (say) 50 miles of where the plane disappeared?

Okay, maybe PM is telling us that. In any case, PM produced innumerate propaganda to back up the official story.

But as I said earlier, PM confirmed that 4500 identical blips referred to the entire continental US. So PM was telling us that ATC had to search the entire continental US for a plane that disappeared in New York.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 14 Jun 2009 #permalink

"This is only going to get worse and the paranoid conspiracy-mongering from the right is stoking the flames."

I think it will, but troofers were also some of the most fervent critics of the Bush administration. They're a broad church.

"I noticed that two of the principals for this website are physicians.

I encourage you to visit Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth at..."

I am as impressed by Medical professional throwing their presumed weight behind this conspiracy theory as I am by the medical professionals who signed on to the physicians against evolution list.

Appeals to (pseudo)authority are only impressive to those who think that their sources actually have the authority they want all - including themselves - to think they have.

KingTruffle spews the usual anti-intellectualism that accompanies the very personalities discussed in the original post.

The truthers appear to believe that radar is ubiquitous, infallible, and has unlimited range.

SLPage: I hope you're not referring to me. You won't find a single thing I said that assumed such a thing. What did I say or do? I denounced PM for telling us that ATC has to search the entire continental US for an airplane that has disappeared a few minutes earlier in New York.

"4500 identical radar blips" span the entire continental US.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 15 Jun 2009 #permalink

The real question to ask is "so what"?

Do you really believe the Bush administration did LIHOP or MIHOP?
Do you really believe it is possible to disguise such a conspiracy that would require thousands of people, US citizens all, to be culpable and silent?
Do you really believe that in an event as catastrophic and complex as a terrorist attack and a multi-agency response that we would have an answer for every question?

This is all distraction techniques. The real question is, are there any questions of any import left with regards to 9/11. The answer is no. 19 hijackers crashed planes into buildings and one plane was taken back over by passengers and crashed. Our government was unprepared. The Bush administration was taken off guard by the attacks. Their response was poor. Bush used 9/11 to attack a country not involved in the attacks.

If we stipulate to all these facts, what else is left that we have to give a damn about? Are you pushing MIHOP or LIHOP. If the answer is either, you're a crackpot and we're finished, because the conspiracy theories involved are ludicrous and non-parsimonious.

MarkH: "So what?"

This issue is simple: lies, incompetence, and propaganda infest the official story of 9/11.

The second issue is the extreme difficulty of getting through to people who've bought the official story, and those people's denial tactics.

I presented an obvious example of blatant propaganda from Popular Mechanics:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.

A competent defender of the official story would be as quick as any Truther to denounce PM's propaganda in support of the official story. Lying for the Truth is no virtue.

Instead, what do I get? (Three guesses.)

Our government's talk on 9/11 has been infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda. For example, the Langley fighter jets were unanimously portrayed before 2004 as responding to Flight 77, not Phantom Flight 11. Thousands had to know, yet the FAA and DoD stayed very much on message.

The 9/11 Commission's Report is infested with lies and propaganda. I mentioned earlier the Commission's "discussion" of the military's hijack exercise on 9/11. Then there's the following blood libel of the FAA:

The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.

> Do you really believe it is possible to disguise such a
> conspiracy that would require thousands of people, US
> citizens all, to be culpable and silent?

Thousands? Why not only a couple dozen? If the help of thousands are needed, they would be told a cover story such as the hijack exercise (for example).

Then there were probably thousands who knew about the Phantom Flight 11, but the FAA and DoD managed to stay on the false message before 2004.

> This is all distraction techniques.

Oh? Exposing and denouncing lies, incompetence and propaganda is a distraction technique? Or are you engaging in a denialist tactic yourself?

> The real question is, are there any questions of any
> import left with regards to 9/11. The answer is no.

Yes. What the heck really happened?

> 19 hijackers crashed planes into buildings...

That's the official story, told by the Bush Administration, which is known for its impeccable honesty./end{sarcasm} We also know that the Bush Administration fought independent investigation of 9/11. We also know that before 9/11, investigation of potential attacks was sabotaged.

> If we stipulate to all these facts, what else is left
> that we have to give a damn about?

I refuse to stipulate to the claims in your paragraph.

In fact, I refuse to stipulate to supposedly well-established claims as Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11. After all, the FBI doesn't.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Or to the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband. The exhibits in the Moussaoui case summarizing phone calls from Flight 77 only claim one failed call by Barbara Olson, no successful call.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecutio…

The slides are unpacked and presented here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

(The link to "Unknown Callers" needs to be corrected -- it should end in .png, not .jpg as given. I'm emailing them now about it.)

By John M 307 (not verified) on 18 Jun 2009 #permalink

" (Don't cite the 9/11 Commission Report.)"

Classic response of those truly in denial: don't cite any official report because they are all in on the conspiracy.john m 307, i put my education and comprehension skills up against yours any day, and i would win: your pointless and unjustified whining reminds me of the antics of a two-year old who doesn't get what she wants: the difference is that the two-year old eventually learns better and stops.

Wow, that's the big evidence? The whole "Ted Olson made up his wife's calls" crap. Truly repugnant, and false. His conspiracy of a dozen now includes Ted Olson for some damn reason. How stupid is that? Oh, it's a small conspiracy, that somehow needs to involve the former solicitor general as part of the cover-up? Really? Do you understand how stupid you sound? We don't argue with cranks here, and this is why.

What a nutjob.

MarkH, Let's try again: The PROSECUTION about Flight 77 phone calls by Barbara Olson: one failed attempt, no successful attempt.

Did you even bother to check the USCOURTS.GOV link?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecutio…

Perhaps MarkH thinks that the Moussaoui prosecutor fabricated the summary to stir up the 9/11 Truth movement. Or perhaps MarkH thinks that I lied, and made up a false link daring him to check, knowing that he never would.

But no, that attributes too much thought for the mindless response that I received. I'm a "nutjob" and a "crank". At that point, my words no longer get through with comprehension.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2009 #permalink

Plenty of comprehension.

You're wildly wrong about the science.
You lie about the evidence.
You ignore everything that contradicts you.
You make impossible demands.

And then you wonder why we dismiss you as insane? Well, it's because you are insane!

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 21 Jun 2009 #permalink

LanceR. You might identify who you're replying to. One might get the idea that you were replying to my post 63, or to my posts in general, which were accurate.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2009 #permalink

The idea that Olson did not call her husband is a total fantasy. Are you really suggesting they need Ted Olson to lie about his wife dying in order for their grand conspiracy to work? What a clever way to convince the public the attacks were real, other than the hundreds of people on 395 who saw the plane hit the building. All they need is to include Ted Olson in the plot and have him lie about his wife's death while she hides out living large in the Caribbean.

The reason why we start insulting you is because we just can't help it. These ideas are just so stupid we are left agog. The court documents, read by the non-retarded, show 4 phone calls not accounted for that did connect. The records are consistent with calls to Ted Olson.

And even if Ted Olson is lying about his wife's last moments, what does that mean? Your conspiracy of a few dozen now has government officials from the judiciary lying, former news reporters going into hiding, hundreds of people on those flights agreeing to be disappeared...this is the definition of the non-parsimonious conspiracy theory. It's simply idiotic. Get a life, and stop calling the victims of the attack liars.

john m 307, since you're the only one repeated unfounded lies here, it would seem #64 IS aimed at you.

Four unknown callers to unknown numbers. They are unconnected with Barbara Olson in the Prosecution's summary. Do you deny that fact, MarkH?

Do you deny that the summary lists one failed phone attempt from Barbara Olson?

You make a major leap of logic, when you connect the four unknowns with Barbara Olson. The prosecution's summary doesn't make that leap.

The rest of your post is garbage, unrelated to what I wrote. I don't know what was up with Ted Olson, why he kept changing his story about Barbara Olson's phone calls, etc. Read what I wrote; don't read what I never wrote.

And where the heck do they get four unknown callers to unknown numbers? What did the telephone records say? (I'm not asking you personally, MarkH. I'm asking in general, with a nod to the FBI.)

But this next question is to you, MarkH. Can you develop sufficient integrity to recognize falsehoods, propaganda, and incompetence in defense of the official story? Can you develop a spine sufficient to publicly denounce them, including the Popular Mechanics patent falsehood that I described above? (The one about 4500 identical radar blips?) That's what started this whole business with me here.

Recognize who the denialists are. Check my posts and their replies, and see which exhibit any kind of competence and literacy.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 23 Jun 2009 #permalink

dean: You are emulating the Republicans. The "Seeing the Forest" rule applies here: when a Republican accuses someone of something, it means the Republican is doing it.

LanceR: If your post was to me, the "Seeing the Forest" rule applies to you as well.

Everyone: Either actually defend Popular Mechanics's quote as reasonable, or admit that Popular Mechanics engaged in propaganda or incompetence in defense of the official 9/11 story.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 23 Jun 2009 #permalink

Shorter John M 307:

"Everyone ignore that I don't answer questions, nor do I actually have an argument. Everyone look at the strawman I've built! Look over there! At the giant distraction!"

Bald assertions do not an argument make, johnny. The Popular Mechanics article is, frankly, irrelevant. I've never read it, nor do I need to do so to know that you are, clearly, insane.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 23 Jun 2009 #permalink

DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !

David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

In the name of the holy babble, what was that?

Hmmm. What is more reasonable. That one or two of Olson's calls went through to her husband from the 4 that were known to be made? Or that her husband, usually considered an honorable conservative is part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the fact that his wife (and no one else?) was on that plane to increase the believability of the attack?

Because, after all, if Ted Olson's wife hadn't been killed, I'd never have believed the hundreds of witnesses, the video, the families of the victims who received calls from other passengers...I'd have to believe, what exactly? That maybe Ted Olson in the midst of a panicky life-and-death scenario got a few details wrong? That human memory isn't perfect? No! It's proof that the attacks were planned! Ted Olson is in on it! He's the lynch pin of the campaign to convince people it's real because they needed a famous person to die!

What a whackaloon. (john's response will inevitably fail to explain the significance of Ted Olson's purported lying and instead focus on the fact that I called him a whackaloon after a long explanation why john is a whackaloon).

LanceR: Your comment describes your own response to me perfectly, except for your first response to me about transponders. The standard pseudoscientific response: ignore the content, and respond with insults.

Okay, if you view Popular Mechanics (and its alleged debunking of the 9/11 Truthers) as irrelevant, then I hope at least you get the message that incompetence is seen in defense of the official story.

MarkH: "Hmmm. What is more reasonable. That one or two of Olson's calls went through to her husband from the 4 that were known to be made? Or that her husband, usually considered an honorable conservative is part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the fact that his wife (and no one else?) was on that plane to increase the believability of the attack?"

Perhaps neither option is a reasonable conclusion? The second is an obvious strawman, as was most of the garbage in your earlier post.

The first is unreasonable because (1) telephone records would have confirmed Barbara Olson's calls, (2) unknown callers to unknown number is unreasonable for telephone records, (3) jumping to conclusions about who called whom given the unknowns is unreasonable, and (4) other calls from Flight 77 were reported to the FBI, and never made the official story. A call (for example) from Flight 77 passenger Todd Reuben (in one case spelled Rueben) is reported in a couple pages at the following links:

http://www.911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team7_Box13_FlightCallNotes302s.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499802/T7-B13-Flight-Call-Notes-and-302s-Fo…

The official story claims only two people called from Flight 77: flight attendant Renee May and passenger Barbara Olson.

The only reasonable conclusion: lies, propaganda, and incompetence infest the official story and its various defenses. Phone calls from "unknown callers" to "unknown
numbers" is one of the lies.

Incompetence infests the 9/11 gullibles, who are sure to turn off their reading comprehension and thinking skills when faced with a truther. Trying to get a 9/11 gullible to actually think is a massive undertaking.

More MarkH: "Because, after all, if Ted Olson's wife hadn't been killed, I'd never have believed the hundreds of witnesses, the video, the families of the victims who received calls from other passengers...I'd have to believe, what exactly? That maybe Ted Olson in the midst of a panicky life-and-death scenario got a few details wrong? That human memory isn't perfect? No! It's proof that the attacks were planned! Ted Olson is in on it! He's the lynch pin of the campaign to convince people it's real because they needed a famous person to die!"

No MarkH, you don't believe the witnesses, the video, or the families who received the calls. You believe the official story told about them -- a completely different thing. You probably didn't even look at the videos of the aircraft approaching the Pentagon, for example. Likewise, you probably didn't look at what the witnesses actually said, about the plane hitting the Pentagon.

The rest was more sarcastic strawmen about Ted Olson. You seem to have forgotten that my argument was that the evidence didn't support the existence of the calls. Telephone records would have confirmed the calls. (Credit-card record, collect-call record, cellphone record, airphone record, as the case may be.)

More mindless drivel: "What a whackaloon. (john's response will inevitably fail to explain the significance of Ted Olson's purported lying and instead focus on the fact that I called him a whackaloon after a long explanation why john is a whackaloon)."

Yeah, right. A 9/11 gullible who can't read straight or think straight calls me a fancy word for nutcase. Once the "conspiracy theory" tag is applied, the brain turns off. One can't get the 9/11 gullible to comprehend something obvious, let alone anything requiring a certain amount of thought. The 9/11 gullible ignores the content and insults the author.

... or even libels the author, calling him insane.

So it becomes impossible to get a 9/11 gullible to notice the obvious absurdities (two howlers!) of the following:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.

Or to notice that telephone records would have confirmed Barbara Olson's alleged calls.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 27 Jun 2009 #permalink

John M 307:
"You are emulating the Republicans. The "Seeing the Forest" rule applies here: when a Republican accuses someone of something, it means the Republican is doing it."

You are either paranoid, delusional, stupid, dishonest, or all of them (I'm sure it's the last of these; others may select a proper subset.)

As has been noted, the fact that you can ignore witnesses, film, and the work of people who actually understand science and engineering in the hope that you can keep your little fantasy going is disgusting. I'm not sure what your goal is here - perhaps you have hopes of making money from other suckers, perhaps you just want to try to get a little fame, perhaps (this is the scariest possibility) you even believe what you say. Whatever it is, you come across as simply a pathetic, rather foolish, person.

Dean: You're not reading a single damn thing I wrote.

What witnesses am I ignoring?

What film am I ignoring?

What science am I misunderstanding?

Answer those questions based on what I actually wrote.

Apply those questions to the issue of telephone records -- just try. Your comments are shear absurdity.

Understanding science: Anyone who can't see the absurdity of the Popular Mechanics quote (repeatedly posted) is incompetent in science. This is an incredibly low bar to pass.

"Don't mistake denialism for debate."

By John M 307 (not verified) on 30 Jun 2009 #permalink

What witnesses am I ignoring?

The millions of Americans who watched 9/11 happen.

What science am I misunderstanding?

Apparently, all of it.

Telephone records? Srsly? We've got planes flying into buildings, 3000+ dead, and you wanna quibble about telephone records?

Yeah, and the "Nuh-uh, you're the denialist" tripe never works around here. You have to actually come up with an argument. So far? You're not doing so good.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 30 Jun 2009 #permalink

LanceR: You're an idiot. What the hell do you think those millions actually saw?

What science am I misunderstanding? Name one bit of science that I have actually gotten wrong in this thread.

You need a lesson in logic: Fact 1: If Barbara Olson had made those calls, the records would have shown them. Fact 2: The records didn't show them. Conclusion: Barbara Olson didn't make those calls.

If P then Q. Q is false. Therefore P is false.

Combined with other facts I state, the overall conclusion: The official story of 9/11 is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda.

LanceR (as well as dean and MarkH): You are the denialists. Not paying a single damn bit of attention to what I actually say, at least with any kind of comprehension.

As you stated yourself, 3000+ persons died in 9/11. 9/11 has also been critical in causing aggressive war, attacks on civil liberties, leading to the deaths of probably over a million. The last thing we need is incompetence regarding 9/11 -- and incompetence has infested the nation.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 02 Jul 2009 #permalink

And again, John, you resort to name-calling and the oft-derided "Nuh-uh! You're the denialist" to cover your basic inability to dispute facts.

1. Terrorists affiliated with Al-Qaeda hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001.

2. Three of these planes were used to attack public buildings, and one crashed when the passengers attempted to retake the plane.

3. The federal government botched nearly everything involved in the attacks. They ignored "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" warnings, they failed to investigate terrorists taking flight lessons, they ignored basic investigatory techniques in their rush to invade Iraq... none of which even implies culpability.

What, exactly, do you disagree with about this? What is your point? Whether the government botched the investigation is irrelevant to the fact that terrorists attacked the US, using our then-current hijacking protocols and bureaucratic inertia to commit an atrocity.

We comprehend your posts just fine. It's the same troofer crap that gets spewed so very often. The lies, incompetence and propaganda? Yeah. That's all on your end.

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 02 Jul 2009 #permalink

What MarkH calls "crank magnetism" I've always called "syndromism", a term I swiped from J.C. Furnas' book The Life and Times of the late Demon Rum" to describe the tendency for people to acquire their beliefs as a sort of package deal. Regarding conspiracism, you could also call it the "betcha can't swallow just one" effect.

But this thread demonstrates something which really deserves to be called "magnetism":

All you need to do is to put up a blog post on the subject of paranoid conspiracism or crankery in general and you wind up up to your eyeballs in cranks, and every one of them has brought his personal hobbyhorse and demands that you play with it.

By Ktesibios (not verified) on 03 Jul 2009 #permalink

Wow, Syd. You really are delusional. What "point" are you trying to make? All you have so far is exactly what you accuse us of doing: insults and innuendo.

If that's all you've got, stick it "innuendo".

By LanceR, JSG (not verified) on 03 Jul 2009 #permalink

John, you pathetic liar. As has been noted, you are ignoring the fact that millions of people saw the planes hit the second tower, many in NY saw the first hit, as well as those who saw the plane hit the pentagon. Your imaginary leap from your unsupported assertion about phone calls to "the entire thing is filled with lies and coverups" is a new level of foolishness (I'll make an exception for you: more dishonesty). I'll put my understanding of science and mathematics up against yours, and those of the other conspiracy freaks, any time.

If it weren't for your repeated posts I'd wouldn't believe anyone so gullible could live.

LanceR:

And again, John, you resort to name-calling and the oft-derided "Nuh-uh! You're the denialist" to cover your basic inability to dispute facts.<\blockquote>

LanceR, I called you an idiot and provided immediate justification. How are you an idiot? Count the ways:

1. Millions saw (on television) airplanes hit the towers. Millions saw (on television) a collapsed Pentagon section on fire. That's ALL millions saw.

2. You said that if a transponder is turned off, the airplane disappears to ATC -- end of story. (Comment #43, the closest you came to actually responding to something I said.)

3. Patently false (and libelous) comment #64.

4. Post #70 -- another patent falsehood.

5. You couldn't find a response to this: "What science am I misunderstanding? Name one bit of science that I have actually gotten wrong in this thread."

6. You talk about reading comprehension, but refuse to read most of what I wrote with any form of comprehension. (Or maybe you've simply decided to play dumb.)

1. Terrorists affiliated with Al-Qaeda hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001.

2. Three of these planes were used to attack public buildings, and one crashed when the passengers attempted to retake the plane.

And our air security was powerless against the carefully plotted hijacking.

Those are part of the official story. And the official story is infested with lies, incompetence, and propaganda. Our air security wasn't powerless, it was paralyzed. (I've already given many other examples of lies.)

And the FBI page on Osama bin Laden still doesn't mention 9/11:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

3. The federal government botched nearly everything involved in the attacks. They ignored "Bin Laden Determined to Attack" warnings, they failed to investigate terrorists taking flight lessons, they ignored basic investigatory techniques in their rush to invade Iraq... none of which even implies culpability.

Finally, you begin to get something right. But you don't go far enough. The failure to investigate terrorist taking flight lessons went beyond playing Calvin and Hobbes (being out in outer space while someone's trying to tell you something critically important). The FBI headquarters actively sabotaged investigation before 9/11, including altering a document by agent Coleen Rowley to make it unsupportive of a warrant application.

The Bush Administration staunchly fought independent investigation of 9/11 afterwards. They fought the formation of the commission. Eventually, when they finally formed the commission, they grossly underfunded it, and stalled and stonewalled providing information.

These are smoking guns (more accurately, 21-cannon salutes) implying Bush Administration culpability.

Then we have the fact that the Bush Administration and mainstream publications with apparent authority such as Popular Mechanics have repeatedly lied to us about 9/11. (I've already provided numerous examples.) 9/11 Gullibles not only believe the liars knowing that they lie, they believe the lies.

By John M 307 (not verified) on 05 Jul 2009 #permalink

rereading all of john's tedious posts shows that

1) he simply doesn't like the results of other investigations
2) he hasn't demonstrated any evidence of scientific knowledge on his part
3) he really hasn't posted any possible realistic explanations, but spends time spewing
invectives.

he seems to be one of those people who refuse (or, possibly, can't) believe that events that are historically monumental can be carried off with determination and luck by people who aren't extra-ordinary themselves. it must be strange in his world.