Libertarian Opinions: “Out With The Crackpots” and “A Modest Proposal For Ending The Drug War”

Out With the Crackpots

By George Phillies, Gold USA Group

April 19, 2013

Most Libertarians have natural hesitations about trusting government operations.  Mind you, I am surprised if my mail does not show up or if the water system fails (catastrophic mains failure), but Libertarians have reasonable skepticism.Alas, this skepticism means that we attract people who are congenitally unable to believe anything, at a level that exceeds all reason.  These people are a detriment to our party, and should be deported to the Republican Party, where they will fit right in. Let me take a few examples:

 

#1.  There is no more scientific debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, no matter how many far right Republicans endanger our country’s as funding global warming deniers.  The people holding contrary views are simply denying reality. Ditto for the evolution deniers, like the morons who ran for the Republican Presidential nomination. And when someone says ‘evolution doesn’t matter’, the answer  is, “Yes, it does matter that your candidate is crazy.”.

 

#2 Then there are the people who think that the United Nations is threatens American liberties.  Your editor is old enough to remember far right Republicans ranting, 50 years ago.  They have not become more believable in the intervening half-century.  Indeed, since the State Department nonsense about never vetoing Security Council resolutions was tossed over the side, the claims have become even less believable, assuming this is possible.  I am reminded of the Republican Congressional Candidate who appeared at a Pioneer Valley Libertarian meeting some years ago.  He was a nice guy, well-spoken.  Then he remarked that he had gone to Amherst to collect nominating signatures, put up his “US Out of the UN” signs.  Suddenly people turned away.  He could not understand why.  We did. He was in the right Party. Not ours!

 

#3 Vaccination deniers at least had the excuse that there was one scientific paper that claimed a link between vaccinations and autism.  That paper has been retracted by its authors, who explained out why they were totally wrong.  Remember: A non-vaccinated child endangers your vaccinated children, because vaccination not perfectly reliable.

A Modest Proposal for Ending the “Drug War” in Delaware

By Steve Newton,  The Delaware Libertarian 

April 24, 2013

Four steps is all it would take to end Delaware’s drug war:

1.  Fix the medical marijuana bill.  This is already being contemplated, I understand.  A medical marijuana bill without an actual delivery method is worse than useless because it is mere tantalizing to those in chronic paid.  This is a simple fix, except for the propensity of the Drug Enforcement Agency to get involved with ignoring state laws about drugs that DEA doesn’t like.  So as a specific legislative flourish, this revision should include language that requires the Delaware Attorney General to defend any legitimate distributor of medical marijuana or any patient legally using it from all Federal charges.

2.  Decriminalize personal use of marijuana.  As an interim step toward legalization, decriminalization would replace the possibility of jail time and a permanent record with small civil fines.  This would, frankly, also discourage intense enforcement.  It would also render much of Delaware’s drug court apparatus unnecessary.

3.  Get all non-violent drug offenders out of Delaware prisons.  If there is a true medical addiction problem, fix it.  That is almost always significantly cheaper than incarceration.  Moreover, doing so would be a major savings to the state and allow actual violent criminals to be handed sentences commensurate with their crimes rather than sentencing guidelines in effect because we haven’t got enough prison beds.

4.  Regulate it like wine–ala Colorado.  Legalize and tax it.

You might ask, why doesn’t he advocate immediate legalization and skip all the interim steps?

Simple:  Equality Delaware has convinced me that the multi-step, coalition-building, steady progression strategy actually works faster.

 

472 thoughts on “Libertarian Opinions: “Out With The Crackpots” and “A Modest Proposal For Ending The Drug War”

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    “These people are a detriment to our party, and should be deported to the Republican Party, where they will fit right in.”

    Get the US OUT of the UN, END mandatory vaccination/eugenics, stop the New World Order, yes those are my opinions. George, as a “conspiracy theorist” I don’t belong in the LP? The GOP is a better fit?

    Because if most LPers hold your very narrow minded way of thinking, hell, I won’t want to be in such a party in the first place.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    I was disappointed to read this from George. There is tons of science available proving that the official 9/11 story (I call it the Swiss Cheese theory because it has so many holes) cannot be accurate. I don’t argue with people anymore. If anyone is genuinely interested in learning, I think that http://www.ae911truth.org. is an excellent place to start.

  3. Rod Stern

    1) Not sure why these articles should be combined?

    2) ” if most LPers hold your very narrow minded way of thinking…”

    Not even close to most LPers.

  4. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@article):

    There is no more scientific debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming

    That’s ridiculous! George is the one who is anti-science, as science demands critical testing of hypotheses. What I’ve seen repeatedly is the so-called scientific community (and especially the liberal political community) refusing to critically examine contrary evidence, and instead try to stifle science with a herd mentality.

    Additionally, even if the science were 100% clear, the political solutions to the problem should be critically evaluated through the lens of economics to generate a cost/benefit analysis and look for unintended consequences. The language George uses (calling people “deniers” and “crazy”) has been applied by many to shut off debate on the economics as well.

    It’s just plain sad that any libertarian would buy into jettisoning science, economics, and logic for herd mentality ad hominem attacks.

    George Phillies wrote (@article):

    Then there are the people who think that the United Nations is threatens American liberties.

    Equally ridiculous! The United Nations abridges United States sovereignty every time we sign a treaty or have to ask permission to do something. This is especially evidence in things like the small arms treaty. Just because the United Nations does a lot of good things that we generally agree with doesn’t mean people are kooky for saying it abridges our sovereignty.

    George Phillies wrote (@article):

    Vaccination deniers

    At least he’s right on that one.

    Jill Pyeatt wrote (@2):

    There is tons of science available proving that the official 9/11 story (I call it the Swiss Cheese theory because it has so many holes) cannot be accurate.

    Where in the article does George talk about 9/11 truth?

    Personally I find some parts of the 9/11 story don’t add up (specifically the plane crash in Pennsylvania, which I believe may have been shot down, and the collapse of building 7). Sadly even raising those questions lumps you with people who believe the whole 9/11 attack was a false flag operation — a theory I consider to be nuts. Therefore, I don’t think any of the 9/11 holes are worth talking about.

  5. Dave

    I find this article to be a bit presumptuous. Especially since if I recall correctly Mr. Phillies is a vocal critic of Ron Paul. Does anyone doubt had Paul run in either 2008 or 2012 for the LP nomination that he would have received it on the first ballot with token opposition? I assume Mr. Phillies wouldn’t have supported Paul despite maybe 90-95% of the other delegates doing so. Doesn’t that make him out of the mainstream of the LP? I’d wager more LP delegates would have supported nominating Paul then would support putting a “global warming is real and must be combated” statement in the platform.

    It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not a vaccination denier and I tend to believe global warming is probably happening, though I freely admit to never studying that particular issue or it being one of my main concerns. But to tell folks that have every right to be skeptical of the government that they’re not welcome in the LP only serves to stunt recruitment from what should otherwise be a fertile and sympathetic audience.

  6. Gene Berkman

    The platform adopted by The Libertarian Party at its founding convention in Denver in 1972 called for U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and other inter-governmental organizations.

    The U.N. is another burden on American taxpayers. It has little direct coercive power, but it has given its authorization to military interventions including the first Iraq war in 2001.

    The U.N. promotes socialistic programs in the name of economic development, and in other ways it promotes collectivist and statist viewpoints. For all these reasons, Libertarians call for U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    Chuck, the article does not mention 9/11 Truth, but I believe it was implied because of the other categories specifically mentioned. I find it curious, though, that you’re reluctant to ask legitimate questions because you think it lumps you on with some hard-to-swallow ideas floating around out there. In theory, “Truthers ” ate simply people asking questions. There are millions of us, and there are indeed some crazy ideas . For example , a small percentage believe that true jets didn’t hit the towers, that they were remote-controlled or even a giant hologram. Just because those ideas put there, doesn’t mean that’s questions or your questions are less legitimate.

  8. Rod Stern

    @11 A to B is the most effective way to get from A to Z. Otherwise we are likely to remain stuck at A, pining after Z and getting nowhere.

    For example, when alcohol prohibition was repealed, many local regulations remained in place. Some of them are still in place today, and some are being gradually repealed over time. I know quite a few dry county laws, Sunday blue laws, etc, that have just been repealed within the last few years, 80 years after alcohol prohibition ended.

    Yes, alcohol, marijuana, and other substances should ultimately not be taxed or regulated at all. But better taxes and regulations than shootouts, poisoning and prison.

  9. Rod Stern

    Phillies runs for something at every LP national convention – usually chair, sometimes president or secretary/treasurer – and always gets around 5 or 10%, so I would not presume that he is speaking for the whole LP.

  10. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Even Ernest Hancock has done better in terms of chair races. I’m sure that along with Brian Holtz Dr. Phillies isn’t a big fan of him 😉

  11. Rod Stern

    “Even Ernest Hancock has done better in terms of chair races.”

    I don’t remember off hand if this is true, but Hancock did not do very well either IIRC.

  12. Andy

    “George Phillies // Apr 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    @1 You got that one right.”

    The opposite is true. The people who believe what the government tells them to believe are the ones who should be run out of the Libertarian Party.

  13. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I wouldn’t say that anyone (outside of infiltrators like Wayne Allyn Root or Roger Stone) should necessarily be run out of the party, but I just hope the people who trust government as much as Dr. Phillies don’t become the face of the party.

  14. Rod Stern

    Well, you could run out this group and that group until there’s no one left. Or you could compete for who can bring more people in. Which do you think would be the better approach?

  15. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    I wouldn’t say that anyone (outside of infiltrators like Wayne Allyn Root or Roger Stone) should necessarily be run out of the party, but I just hope the people who trust government as much as Dr. Phillies don’t become the face of the party.”

    The more trust a person puts in government, the less likely it is that they are a libertarian.

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Well, you could run out this group and that group until there’s no one left. Or you could compete for who can bring more people in. Which do you think would be the better approach?”

    Pro-government sympathizers within the LP are holding the party back.

  16. Rod Stern

    There’s nothing about believing or not believing various conspiracies theories that makes someone a libertarian or not a libertarian.

  17. Andy

    The United Nations promotes socialism, gun control, and foreign intervention. It is funded via taxation. Why should any libertarian support such an organization?

  18. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    There’s nothing about believing or not believing various conspiracies theories that makes someone a libertarian or not a libertarian.”

    A person who routinely attacks anyone who questions official government stories is not a libertarian.

  19. Rod Stern

    “A person who routinely attacks anyone who questions official government stories is not a libertarian.”

    If you believe that version of events, it would make sense to believe that conspiracy talk marginalizes the party. Believing a given version of events does not mean you do or do not endorse big government solutions to social, economic or world problems, so it does not determine whether you are a libertarian or not.

  20. Andy

    Rod Stern said: “If you believe that version of events, it would make sense to believe that conspiracy talk marginalizes the party. Believing a given version of events does not mean you do or do not endorse big government solutions to social, economic or world problems, so it does not determine whether you are a libertarian or not.”

    The entire government IS a conspiracy. Politicians and other government officials routinely lie. Government does not exist without conspiracy.

    If anything, the Libertarian Party gets marginalized when people claiming to be Libertarians shout down or deride those who question official government stories. Why? Because it discourage many of the natural libertarians – most of whom are non-voters or are independents – from getting involved with the party.

  21. Andy

    How in the hell can any Libertarian support the United Nations? There is no libertarian case for the UN.

  22. Darryl W. Perry

    @12 “A to B is the most effective way to get from A to Z. Otherwise we are likely to remain stuck at A, pining after Z and getting nowhere.”

    Yes, I agree; however, libertarians should be advocating Z, not advocating B, C, D or even Y.

  23. Rod Stern

    We can advocate B as a step toward Z. Or even just any movement in that direction.

  24. Andy

    George Phillies said: “I am reminded of the Republican Congressional Candidate who appeared at a Pioneer Valley Libertarian meeting some years ago. He was a nice guy, well-spoken. Then he remarked that he had gone to Amherst to collect nominating signatures, put up his ‘US Out of the UN’ signs. Suddenly people turned away. He could not understand why. We did.”

    What this meant is that he engaged in bad marketing for the crowd for whom he was trying to gather petition signatures, not that his position on the issue was wrong. Most college students do not care that much one way or the other about the United Nations. It is not a high priority issue in their lives. The education system in this country does lean toward leftist socialism, so what little they know about the UN comes from that perspective. So the typical college student is either going to not care about the UN, or will think that it must be something good because that it what they were told in school.

    A better marketing ploy this candidate could have used at this college would have been to put up an anti-war or anti-military draft sign.

    If this candidate had the chance to fully explain his position on the United Nations to the students passing by it is likely that some of them would have agreed with him, but given that he did not have time to get into long discussions with the students, it is not surprising that he did not have much success with that sign.

    Also, stopping students on college campuses to do anything, or for that matter, stopping anyone anywhere to do anything, is not generally an easy thing to do, so if this guy lacked experience in doing this, this would actually have been the primary reason for his troubles.

    A person is not likely to understand or care about why the US should get out of the UN unless they have at least some understanding of why free market economics is better than socialism, why gun control laws lead to more crime and tyranny, and why US government intervention in foreign affairs does more harm than good.

    “He was in the right Party. Not ours!”

    The mainstream of the Republican Party supports the United Nations. I’ve been in the Libertarian Party since 1996 and I can say that supporting the United Nations is NOT a mainstream view in the Libertarian Party.

    I don’t know what the other views were of this candidate, but it sounds like he was either a libertarian Republican or a paleo-conservative Republican, neither of which would make him a mainstream candidate in the Republican Party.

  25. Andy

    “or will think that it must be something good because that it what they were told in school.”

    Should read, “or will think it must be something good because that is what they were told in school.”

  26. Andy

    Obama’s “information czar,” Cass Sunstein, advocated that the government crack down on conspiracy theories, by either taxing people who promote them, infiltrating groups with plants who work to discredit people who promote conspiracy theories, or outright banning conspiracy theories.

    Here’s a video where Cass Sunstein got called out for this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OIiOztc52g

  27. Andy

    This is from Cass Sunstein’s paper on conspiracy theories:

    “II. Governmental Responses
    What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
    what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
    Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
    of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
    might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
    theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
    counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
    parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
    effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
    However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
    of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).”

  28. Darryl W. Perry

    @30 – anything less than advocating full liberty is a compromising position.
    If you’re willing to compromise 5% or 10%; where do you draw the line?

    PS
    advocating B and supporting B are NOT the same thing. Would I be willing to support legislation to tax marijuana? Let’s just say, I wouldn’t oppose it, but I would still adamantly advocate for marijuana to be as legal as tomatoes!

  29. Rod Stern

    “anything less than advocating full liberty is a compromising position.
    If you’re willing to compromise 5% or 10%; where do you draw the line?”

    Movement in the direction I want. It’s them compromising, not me. Once I’ve achieved some movement in the direction I want, I try for more. So, I have given up nothing, while they have given up something.

    Alternative: They give up nothing, and I remain stuck where I was.

  30. Andy

    “Darryl W. Perry // Apr 25, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    @30 – anything less than advocating full liberty is a compromising position.
    If you’re willing to compromise 5% or 10%; where do you draw the line?”

    The reason for the tax & regulating schemes when it comes to legalizing marijuana is that the marijuana legalization movement is made up of a coalition of libertarians and leftists. It is really the leftists who insist on taxing and regulating marijuana, and they are the ones who put up a lot of the money for marijuana legalization initiatives and lobbying.

    Among marijuana legalization supporters (as in among those who are in the general public), most of them just want it to be legal and they do not care that much about the details. There is a small but vocal subset among the public who will only support the legalization of marijuana if it is taxed and regulated.

  31. Rod Stern

    Imagine playing a game of football with the philosophy Darryl advocates; we would be starting from deep in our own territory but he would consider it a “compromise” to do anything other than throw for the endzone on every single down. Meanwhile, he keeps getting sacked or throwing away the ball and making no gain every time. No wonder the score is so lopsided against us!

  32. Rod Stern

    Andy, does Phillies actually advocate for the UN? As far as I know all he said is that he doesn’t think it is a threat to US sovereignty. That could mean he thinks it’s a good thing, but it could also mean he just thinks it’s not a big deal or not very effective.

  33. Rod Stern

    “The entire government IS a conspiracy. Politicians and other government officials routinely lie. Government does not exist without conspiracy.”

    That says nothing about the validity of the specific conspiracy theories Phillies refers to.

  34. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    Andy, does Phillies actually advocate for the UN? As far as I know all he said is that he doesn’t think it is a threat to US sovereignty. That could mean he thinks it’s a good thing, but it could also mean he just thinks it’s not a big deal or not very effective.”

    He mocks and tries to discredit those who say that the US should get out of the UN, and acts as though this is not a libertarian position (even though it is a libertarian position, a mainstream libertarian position for that matter).

    Here is the libertarian case against the United Nations:

    1) It is funded via taxation.

    2) It promotes socialism.

    3) It promotes gun control.

    4) It promotes governments interfering in the affairs of other governments.

    What is the libertarian case for the United Nations? I do not think that there is one.

  35. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    ‘The entire government IS a conspiracy. Politicians and other government officials routinely lie. Government does not exist without conspiracy.’

    That says nothing about the validity of the specific conspiracy theories Phillies refers to.”

    He mocks and tries to discredit anyone in the LP who does not buy into the official government line on several issues, kind of like the Cass Sunstein of the Libertarian Party.

  36. Rod Stern

    “He mocks and tries to discredit those who say that the US should get out of the UN,”

    Maybe. Or maybe just those people who think it’s a primary issue.

    “What is the libertarian case for the United Nations? I do not think that there is one.”

    Personally I oppose the UN, but in theory you could claim that it is a relatively inexpensive and relatively nonintrusive entity that prevents horrific world wars. I don’t agree with any of that, but the case could be made.

  37. Rod Stern

    “He mocks and tries to discredit anyone in the LP who does not buy into the official government line on several issues”

    …And whether the government line on those issues is correct or not is not established by the fact that politicians and bureaucrats sometimes lie.

  38. Andy

    Rod Stern said: “Maybe. Or maybe just those people who think it’s a primary issue.”

    Different people have different issues that they prioritize. Even if one does not consider getting the US out of the UN to be a high priority issue, it does not mean that this stance is not correct.

    “Personally I oppose the UN, but in theory you could claim that it is a relatively inexpensive and relatively nonintrusive entity that prevents horrific world wars. I don’t agree with any of that, but the case could be made.”

    Well, in theory one could claim that the War on Drugs is a good thing because it keeps people off of drugs. One could claim in theory that gun control laws are good because they prevent crime. One could claim in theory that government welfare programs are good because they help the poor.

    A theoretical case could be made to support any government action or program, but this does not mean that it has anything to do with reality.

  39. Andy

    “48 Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    ‘He mocks and tries to discredit anyone in the LP who does not buy into the official government line on several issues’

    …And whether the government line on those issues is correct or not is not established by the fact that politicians and bureaucrats sometimes lie.”

    The entire premise of government is based on lies. Governments by their very nature lie. The rare thing is when any truth slips out, but you’ve got to mix some sugar in with rat poison or people will not swallow it.

  40. Rod Stern

    “Different people have different issues that they prioritize. Even if one does not consider getting the US out of the UN to be a high priority issue, it does not mean that this stance is not correct.”

    And because Phillies thinks it should not be a priority issue it doesn’t say whether he thinks the US should be in the UN or not. Maybe he doesn’t care and thinks it’s stupid that anyone else does?

    “Well, in theory one could claim that…”

    The existence of the UN is not in and of itself a government policy affecting our lives (other than the cost of its maintenance). While many (probably most) libertarians prefer more local government, it’s possible to be a libertarian and believe local tyrannies are worse.

    Whether various UN policies actually interfere in our lives on a practical level, or how much, is debatable. It depends on how realistic you believe it is that the UN can achieve its various goals, such as “gun control.”

    Whether it is effective at reducing wars between nations and slaughters of populations by regimes, an expensive waste, or actually forments more conflict around the world are legitimate questions for libertarians to debate.

  41. Rod Stern

    “The entire premise of government is based on lies. Governments by their very nature lie.”

    And this still doesn’t prove or disprove the specific conspiracy theories that Phillies is writing about here. You are employing circular logic.

  42. Andy

    I strongly urge everyone who reads this thread to watch the videos I posted in posts 33, 35, and 37, and also to check out what Cass Sunstein wrote about how the government should handle conspiracy theorists.

    Does anyone here really believe that Cass Sunstein did not remember writing the paper about conspiracy theories as he claimed in the video where he was confronted by We Are Change? Note that Cass Sunstein wrote this paper in 2008, and the video where he was confronted about it by We Are Change is from 2012.

    Why did Cass Sunstein dodge the questions that were asked in the We Are Change video, and why did he run away?

  43. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    ‘The entire premise of government is based on lies. Governments by their very nature lie.’

    And this still doesn’t prove or disprove the specific conspiracy theories that Phillies is writing about here. You are employing circular logic.”

    I find it ironic that a person would label those who question official government stories as “crackpots,” especially when the individual in question did not take up my challenge (on more multiple occasions) to set up a debate about 9/11 at an LP convention and to have it recorded and posted on-line, when the entire premise of government IS based on lies, such as the lie that certain individuals have the right to rule and control others, and IS in fact a big conspiracy (which is when more than one individual has an agreement to commit a crime, which governments by their very nature commit since they initiate force and fraud).

    Also, who in the hell is Rod Stern? I’ve never heard of a Rod Stern in the LP. The name sounds like some kind of phallic euphemism to me.

  44. Rod Stern

    My name is not a euphemism. And why do you care who I am? Have I said anything that would be more or less true if someone else said it? I’m not interested in ad hominem arguments, I’m here to discuss ideas.

  45. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    My name is not a euphemism.”

    Did you get teased in school for your name, like Jack Mehoff, or Ima Hogg?

  46. Rod Stern

    None of your business. Move on to something besides my name, since I have zero interest in discussing any personal details with you or anyone else here.

  47. Andy

    Another question about Cass Sunstein’s response to the questions posed by We Are Change: Why did he say that his role is to suggest rules that the federal government should implement (not an exact quote, but close enough), when these rules clearly violate the 1st amendment?

    Why does President Barrack Obama employ in his administration who clearly disdains the 1st amendment, as well as the 2nd amendment?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zfex10v08c

    After reading what Cass Sunstein has to say about what the government should do in regard to conspiracy theorists, and after watching the video where Cass Sunstein expresses his views on the right to keep and bear arms, would you say that Barrack Obama is upholding his oath to protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by employing Cass Sunstein as a part of his administration?

  48. Andy

    “Why does President Barrack Obama employ in his administration who clearly disdains the 1st amendment, as well as the 2nd amendment? ”

    Should read: “Why does President Barrack Obama employ a person in his administration who clearly disdains the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd amendment, in Cass Sunstein?

  49. Rod Stern

    “I find it ironic that a person would label those who question official government stories as “crackpots,” especially when the individual in question did not take up my challenge (on more multiple occasions) to set up a debate about 9/11 at an LP convention and to have it recorded and posted on-line, when the entire premise of government IS based on lies, such as the lie that certain individuals have the right to rule and control others, and IS in fact a big conspiracy (which is when more than one individual has an agreement to commit a crime, which governments by their very nature commit since they initiate force and fraud).”

    Personally I think a 9/11 inside job is entirely plausible. But I could understand if from his standpoint it would be embarrassing to have the LP associated with such a debate, kind of like if we had a public debate about whether the moon landings were faked, or if the holocaust happened, or whether the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, or whether the earth is actually flat, and so on.

    The question of the entire premise of government is, again, completely separate from specific conspiracy theories, e.g. 9/11, fluoride, vaccinations, etc.

  50. Rod Stern

    “Why does President Barrack Obama employ a person in his administration who clearly disdains the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd amendment, in Cass Sunstein?”

    Because Obama disdains the Bill of Rights himself.

  51. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    ‘Why does President Barrack Obama employ a person in his administration who clearly disdains the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd amendment, in Cass Sunstein?’

    Because Obama disdains the Bill of Rights himself.”

    Oh come on, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me! (sarcasm intended)

  52. Rod Stern

    @64 Once again: my identity is irrelevant. I have made no claims as to whether Rod Stern is my real name or not, whether I am in the LP or not, if I am in the LP whether I am active or not, etc.

    If you keep harping on my name, it could simply change for the purpose of this discussion. The only thing you need to know about my posts is something to distinguish them from other people’s. Besides that, my name may as well be None Of Your Business, because my name and anything else about me is in fact…none of your business.

  53. Andy

    Rod Stern said: “Personally I think a 9/11 inside job is entirely plausible. But I could understand if from his standpoint it would be embarrassing to have the LP associated with such a debate, kind of like if we had a public debate about whether the moon landings were faked, or if the holocaust happened, or whether the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, or whether the earth is actually flat, and so on.”

    Then he should have no problem engaging 9/11 Truth experts in an open debate and soundly defeating them. I’m skeptical of those who deride people and who also avoid debating those who they deride.

    This is kind of like how Democrats and Republicans avoid debating Libertarian Party and/or other minor party or independent candidates.

  54. Rod Stern

    So would you hold public, recorded and televised debates about whether the moon landings were faked, or if the holocaust happened, or whether the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, or whether the earth is actually flat and rests on the backs of turtles….?

    I’m not saying 9/11 is the same as those things, but I can see where Phillies would think that even taking the idea seriously enough to debate it makes the LP look ridiculous. Again, I don’t agree with him, but is there anything so absurd you would put it in that category, like some of the things I mentioned, or maybe something else?

  55. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    So would you hold public, recorded and televised debates about whether the moon landings were faked, or if the holocaust happened, or whether the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, or whether the earth is actually flat and rests on the backs of turtles….?”

    I don’t spend any time attacking those who purport such things (although I’m not aware of any people who are currently alive who espouse the view that the earth is flat and rests on the backs of turtles, but on a side note, keep in mind that at one time those who said that the earth was round and rotated around the sun were labeled as conspiracy theorists).

  56. Andy

    Rod Stern said: “I’m not saying 9/11 is the same as those things, but I can see where Phillies would think that even taking the idea seriously enough to debate it makes the LP look ridiculous.”

    This implies that George Phillies is the same as the Libertarian Party. He may be a member of the Libertarian Party, but one member does not speak for the entire party, and he does not even currently hold a position in the Libertarian Party. I think that it is rather ridiculous to assert that a person who happens to be a member of a political party engaging in debate somehow should be viewed as representing everyone in the Libertarian Party, particularly when the individual in question does not even hold a position in the party.

  57. George Phillies

    It is one thing to propose that the United Nations (as opposed to some of its parts, like the International Postal Union) is a waste of money, and a completely different thing to claim that the United Nations is a great threat to the freedoms of the American people. The former is an entirely reasonable stance, though withdrawing from the IPU so that we could no longer readily send letters to foreign nations would be a bit silly. The latter is completely whacko.

  58. Rod Stern

    “This implies that George Phillies is the same as the Libertarian Party. ”

    It does not. It implies he is a member who cares about the public image of the organization, and perhaps his own if you want him to participate in this debate.

  59. Rod Stern

    In case you find those opinions to not be beyond the pale, you could find people with even more far out theories in any mental hospital or wandering around city streets talking to themselves and sometimes panhandling. Public debate, anyone?

  60. George Phillies

    @79 Absolutely right. However, at the moment it is inside the UN, and completely withdrawing from the UN would withdraw us from this highly worthwhile organization.

  61. George Phillies

    @50 Governments lie. For example, all those government schools displaying the periodic table of the elements in their classrooms? “Governments lie” goes on the crackpot list.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    My swag’d be that something like 4/5ths of Ls hold at least one of the 3 “crackpot” positions that GP would purge, it appears. As a moderate myself, I too would like to talk the LM off the ledge on several crackpot issues. Purges, however, seem contra-indicated to me.

    Then again, GP still has not offered a plausible explanation for his narcing to the FEC, so his behavior continues to stun me. Then again, I’m always up for an adult conversation.

  63. Rod Stern

    Purging 80% of the LP seems like a tall order. Phillies may end up being the one purged if push comes to shove. Or Andy, for that matter. Maybe even both of them. Maybe there’s a better road to go down than purges.

  64. Roger Roots

    There is a lot here, but I will chime in on George’s claim that “There is no more scientific debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming . . ” This is simply a false claim. There are hundreds of climate scientists, weather researchers and respected scientists who beg to differ. It is also false that all those who disagree with George on this are funded by “far right Republicans” (George probably means the dreaded Koch brothers–one of whom is a former LP Vice Presidential candidate). The Kochs may have funded a couple pieces of research in this area, but their funding pales in comparison to the government’s outright subsidy a large proportion of the anthropogenic global warming literature. Government research grants supporting such research have now reached the billions of dollars.

    I don’t have a strong opinion on this subject. But it is simply false to say that “There is no more scientific debate” on the question. I have read pursuasive writings on both (actually many) sides. Trying to shut down debate is the essance of pseudoscience–and of tyranny.

  65. From Der Sidelines

    Phillies needs to stick to his polymers, because astrophysics and internal physiology are definitely not his science suits. In doing so, he makes himself to look more like a crackpot than the people he disagrees with.

    Let’s put it in simple terms, shall we?

    1. Libertarians want the US out of the UN because we want minimal government and maximum freedom, and getting that layer out of the way is a step in that direction. (Why libertarians live in cities instead of counties to remove another is a different question!)
    2. The issue over vaccines is simply one of freedom of choice and self-ownership of one’s body vs. government mandates based on junk science designed to make profits for pharmaceutical companies off the health and lives of out children. Are vaccines toxic, hazardous, and dangerous? Absolutely, and anyone who thinks otherwise I challenge to take a cup of the vaccine solution of preservatives and adjuvants, free of any virus, and inject directly into your brain, or drink it.
    3. Evolution is a theory and like every theory, it has gaps in it, but it is relatively consistent.
    4. He doesn’t mention it, but the “official” version of 9/11 is just as fictitious as the Warren Report.

  66. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    ‘I’m not aware of any people who are currently alive who espouse the view that the earth is flat’

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

    77 Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    I was not aware of any groups today making this claim, but so what if there are? I don’t agree with them but they’ve got a right to their opinion.

    “78 Rod Stern // Apr 25, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    In case you find those opinions to not be beyond the pale, you could find people with even more far out theories in any mental hospital or wandering around city streets talking to themselves and sometimes panhandling. Public debate, anyone?”

    I’d be open to debating anyone about anything about which I felt passionate. I do not duck debates, and I do not respect people who attack others but then run away from debating those whom they attack.

    Democrats and Republicans duck out of debating Libertarians and other minor party or independent candidates based on this same line of thinking.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 23,

    “The United Nations promotes socialism, gun control, and foreign intervention. It is funded via taxation. Why should any libertarian support such an organization?”

    Every government which has ever existed or exists today meets that description as well, but some people who claim to be libertarians insist that we just can’t do without one.

  68. poorlando

    @89 said “Are vaccines toxic, hazardous, and dangerous? Absolutely, and anyone who thinks otherwise I challenge to take a cup of the vaccine solution of preservatives and adjuvants, free of any virus, and inject directly into your brain, or drink it.”

    This argument doesn’t work. No one who is vaccinated would take in a cup of adjuvant. This is like arguing that alcohol is toxic, hazardous and dangerous, and if you don’t believe me, then just drink a gallon of pure ethanol or give yourself an ethanol enema and see what happens. Or water is toxic; drink 6 liters in 3 hours and see what happens.

  69. Robert Capozzi

    tk 90: …some people who claim to be libertarians insist that we just can’t do without one.

    me: Do they “insist” or do they claim it’s unlikely to be sustainable?

    I myself would love to see a fully formed stateless society, some city somewhere choosing to go nonarcho as an experiment.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 93,

    “Do they ‘insist’ or do they claim it’s unlikely to be sustainable?”

    Well, read what I wrote. I specifically said “insist.” Those who “claim it’s likely to be sustainable” are not the set of individuals I was referring to.

  71. Darryl W. Perry

    @41 “Imagine playing a game of football with the philosophy Darryl advocates…”
    Attempting to score on every DRIVE is the goal.
    Claiming that my advocacy for full legalization is akin to throwing a hail-marry on every PLAY is ludicrous. I’m not opposed to taking steps to get there, I’m opposed to the incremental steps being the goal. To bring back your football analogy: instead of trying to score a touchdown on every DRIVE (not play) those who advocate incrementalist positions are hoping to cross midfield and then kick a long field goal because “a touchdown isn’t viable”

  72. Andy

    “(yes, there really are people that are this stupid and sheepish out there, and not just in California, they exist in everywhere):”

    I was going to put in every state, but then I decided to put everywhere instead, since people that are this stupid also exist in DC as well as every other federal territory, as well as in every country around the planet. If you rely on people like this to fight for your freedom you will be screwed.

  73. Rod Stern

    “The United Nations promotes socialism, gun control, and foreign intervention. It is funded via taxation. Why should any libertarian support such an organization?”

    Every government which has ever existed or exists today meets that description as well,”

    The UN has a fundamentally different set of guiding principles than the US Constitution, including positive rights. If the UN ever gets to be a really powerful layer of government, that will change many US laws for the worse. Now you can say that the UN has little power right now, but the same was true for the US federal government before the 1860s – most of the sovereignty then was at the state level. So, it’s certainly conceivable that the UN could become a lot more powerful in the future.

  74. Rod Stern

    “I’d be open to debating anyone about anything about which I felt passionate. ”

    If a psychotic wacko street person kept getting in your face with some outlandish blathering you might feel passionately about getting away from him, but would you really stand there and debate him in the street?

  75. Rod Stern

    “Attempting to score on every DRIVE is the goal.”

    Correct.

    “Claiming that my advocacy for full legalization is akin to throwing a hail-marry on every PLAY is ludicrous. I’m not opposed to taking steps to get there, I’m opposed to the incremental steps being the goal.”

    Incremental steps are not the goal. Do you really think Steve Newton or any other Libertarians would stop once we achieve the intermediate goal? No, we’ll keep going. But intermediate steps are necessary on the way to the goal.

    “To bring back your football analogy: instead of trying to score a touchdown on every DRIVE (not play) those who advocate incrementalist positions are hoping to cross midfield and then kick a long field goal because “a touchdown isn’t viable”

    No, we just try to have the best field position at all times. Scoring touchdowns and winning the game is still the objective. But in the meantime, we work towards incremental goals, including settling for a field goal when we can’t get a touchdown.

    If the incremental objective was the ultimate objective we wouldn’t call it incremental. Regulation and taxation is an increment because it is better than prohibition, but not our ultimate objective. It moves us closer to our ultimate objective and makes things materially better in the real world, while making the discussion of further steps more realistic.

    Notice how the states which are starting to get recreational legalization are also among the early medical states? So much for all the talk that settling for medical would prevent us from ever getting recreational legalization. True, they still have taxes and regulations; eventually we’ll have to work to repeal those, but in the meantime we should work on medical in the states that don’t have that yet and recreational in the states that already have medical.

    And yes, tax and regulate is part of the rhetoric which makes winning on the recreational initiatives possible in the here now. Regulating like alcohol…that’s something concrete which people can understand, since they already see it in action. Most people think their state and local governments would do good things with more revenue, so taxing is a selling point.

    A few of us understand that taxes and regulations should be done away with – but it’s not time for that battle when it comes to marijuana legalization. Get the intermediate goal first; then work on your next goal. If complete unregulated and untaxed alcohol had been the only acceptable benchmark when ending prohibition, we might still be having shootouts in the streets over whiskey sales and people going blind and dying from rotgut bathtub gin.

  76. Rod Stern

    Then get to that point and part company with them.

    But I think Steve Newton is clearly not one of those, and I think you overestimate how many people want to stop at that step due to the rhetoric they are using to win the incremental battle.

  77. Andy

    “Rod Stern // Apr 26, 2013 at 9:39 am

    ‘I’d be open to debating anyone about anything about which I felt passionate. ‘

    If a psychotic wacko street person kept getting in your face with some outlandish blathering you might feel passionately about getting away from him, but would you really stand there and debate him in the street?”

    This is not a valid comparison at all. I seriously doubt that anyone would ask me on multiple occasions to debate a random wacko on a street corner that has no political following, nor would I feel threatened enough by this person to attack them.

    There are a lot of Libertarians as well as a lot of people among the general public that have a lot of questions about the official government story about 9/11. A few LP members such as George Phillies and Brian Holtz have spent a lot of time deriding those who question the official government story about 9/11, yet they have all ducked out of the challenge that I’ve put out for several years now (going back to well before the 2008 LP National Convention in Denver) to hold a debate on 9/11 Truth at a Libertarian Party convention. The Duensing family hosted a 9/11 Truth event at the LP National Convention in Denver in 2008 in a room which they rented at the hotel with their own money. They had a guest speaker from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the event, and there was a video camera there. I know that Phillies and Holtz were both at that convention, yet neither of them bothered to show up at the 9/11 event to debate. Months prior to this I had spoken to a couple of people who are considered to be experts in the 9/11 Truth field and I had verbal agreements with both of them to show up in Denver to debate Phillies and Holtz and anyone else in the LP who has attacked those who question the official governemnt story about 9/11, but since nobody accepted the challenge that I put out to have this debate I never went through with booking them for the event. I put out this same challenge for the 2010 LP Naitonal Convention in Saint Louis, as well as the 2012 LP National Convention in Las Vegas, yet nobody accepted the challenge.

    So now I’m going to put the challenge out again. This time for the 2014 LP National Convention in Ohio. If anyone will accept the challenge, I will try to book some 9/11 Truth experts to show up at the LP National Convention in Columbus, Ohio, and we can have an open debate on the subject and post it to YouTube.

    I think that Allen Pyeatt is a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Assuming that I’m correct, would Allen be interested in participating in such a debate (I would imagine that Jill or Allen himself will read this message)?

  78. Andy

    Rod Stern said: “The UN has a fundamentally different set of guiding principles than the US Constitution, including positive rights. If the UN ever gets to be a really powerful layer of government, that will change many US laws for the worse. Now you can say that the UN has little power right now, but the same was true for the US federal government before the 1860s – most of the sovereignty then was at the state level. So, it’s certainly conceivable that the UN could become a lot more powerful in the future.”

    I’d compare this situation to the income tax and the IRS. After the income tax was passed (although there is evidence that it was fraudulently ratified, but this is another discussion) in 1913 it did not seem that bad at first to most of the public. Most Americans back then did not even pay income tax. It only applied to wealthy people who engaged in international commerce. Over the decades the IRS grew in power and now they’ve got their hands in everyone’s wallets. If we went back to 1913 and started ringing the bell about what the IRS would turn into in the future I’d bet that there would have been people who’d have called us a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorist alarmists.

    The only thing that is stopping the United Nations from implementing world socialism and mass gun confiscation right now is that they do not have enough power to get away with it….yet.

  79. Robert Capozzi

    95 tk: Well, read what I wrote. I specifically said “insist.” Those who “claim it’s likely to be sustainable” are not the set of individuals I was referring to.

    me: Thanks. I did. I guess I don’t know anyone who thinks that statelessness is impossible. “Insist” implies something like “no chance statelessness could work,” and I’m just not sure anyone thinks that.

    But “insist” is pretty imprecise, so maybe you meant it some other way.

    Now, in my case, I would probably insist that the nonarchy button not be pushed – causing overnight statelessness – in most cases, as it’d be far too risky. It might work out OK for, say, Madagascar but not, say, Pakistan.

    I thinking you can guess why…

  80. Rod Stern

    Andy,

    I was lurking then and I don’t remember which thread but I seem to remember Holtz and/or Phillies say there would be up for a 9/11 debate in Columbus.

  81. Brian Holtz

    My past challenges to 9/11 Truthers remain unanswered:

    • Answer my 10 questions
    • Tee up 5 more questions for me from the original 51 FSC questions, so I can swat them down like I did the 9/11 questions from Downsize DC.
    • My challenge issued here at IPR one week ago: “Pick any specific major conspiracy theory (e.g. JFK, 9/11) and any number N< =20, and I'll bet you $1000 that in N years your conspiracy theory still will not have joined the standard lists of history's authentic conspiracies. We each have to put our wager in escrow with an arbiter — Robin Hanson, Chuck Moulton or any other GMU-affiliated libertarian would be fine. I make my deposit when yours is confirmed."

    Heck, you Truthers didn’t even answer this simple challenge to clarify what you believe.

    And now I’ll add another challenge to libertarian Truthers. Of this list of the most famous living libertarians (almost 1/3 of whom are anarchists), explain why only about 5 out of 80 are Truthers. Why is your government-did-it theory so uncompelling to this audience of government skeptics?

  82. Wes Wagner

    Aside from BH@109’s use of appeal to perceived authority (the list of living libertarians thing…) I can’t disagree with his conclusion.

    I also suspect he will get a 100% return on his investment if anyone takes him up on it.

  83. Rod Stern

    @106 There are many, many examples of government levels and programs that weren’t much for decades, then eventually grew to staggering proportions.

  84. Brian Holtz

    @111 I’m not saying “9/11 isn’t a fact because nearly all famous libertarians disbelieve it”. Rather, I’m saying that the disbelief of nearly all famous libertarians is itself a fact — a fact that my worldview explains and that Truthers’ worldview doesn’t.

    Speaking of the list, it’s worse than I remembered. First of all, only one of the top 40 is a Truther. Of the 80, only four (Napolitano, Badnarik, North, and Hancock) seem to question the standard account of e.g. why the WTC collapsed, but I’m not sure than any of them say they know it was controlled demolition. One more (Raimondo) dismisses controlled demolition as “crackpot”, but apparently believes that Israel saw the attacks coming and didn’t try to stop them. Meanwhile, Higgs is a full-blown Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist, but he says that 9/11 was blowback, and will only go as far as saying that someday we may find out that the government knew 9/11 was coming.

    Let me know if the list omits any famous libertarians (Truther or not), or if the list has any Truthers that I missed.

  85. Rod Stern

    Mr. Holtz, are you willing to debate a 9-11 truth spokesperson(s) live and on video at the Columbus Convention?

  86. George Phillies

    I suppose I could eventually drop birthers and 9/11 crackpots into the list. Recall that soon after the buildigns collapsed there was an investigation of the mechanics organized on finaest libertarian principles, namely it was done by insurance companies and university fire safety programs. After all, there had been some expectation that the buildings should have survived a fire on the indicated scale. There have been lots of skyscraper fires, but none that endangered the building structural integrity. The most central issue turned out to be that the water feed mains were severed, so that the roof water storage handled the fuel fire, but there was then a lack of feed water to the sprinkler system to handle the furniture,paper, etc. fire.

  87. Rod Stern

    Well, at least you’re right about the birthers. Are you up for debating 9/11 in Columbus?

  88. George Phillies

    @87 ” There are hundreds of climate scientists, weather researchers and respected scientists who beg to differ. ”

    A deceitful sentence.

    You can find meteorologists and TV weathermen, hundreds requiring adding on all sorts of odds and sods, but the debate in the climate scientific community has long since ended, and the phrasing ‘hundreds of climate scientists’ might lead readers to the impression that the group listed first was actually numerous.

    @113 If you debate crazy people nothing will be accomplished. You might as well debate creationists. They live in their own world, a world that the internut has made more impenetrable.

  89. Wes Wagner

    GP @115

    I seem to recall that there is also a fairly widely held theory that the impact and initial explosive blast of the plane crash disturbed enough of the fireproofing on the steel beams.

    As opposed to conspiracy theorists who like to say that the metal supports had to be such and such temperature to melt… they don’t have to get very warm at all to lose a significant % of their strength.

  90. just science

    Crackpot, excommunicate thyself!

    (And turn the heat up on the way out, it’s freezing in here.)

  91. Brian Holtz

    My $1000 even-money bet hasn’t gotten any takers, so let me replace it with a sweeter deal.

    Consider the many conspiracies in history that have enjoyed sudden revelation/confirmation, such as

    • 1920: player confessions reveal the 1919 World Series was fixed
    • 1934: Congressional testimony reveals the Business Plot
    • 1957: Apalachin Raid confirms the existence of the mafia
    • 1967: Ramparts Magazine exposes Operation Mockingbird
    • 1971: burglarized FBI files exposes COINTELPRO
    • 1974: White House tapes confirm Watergate cover-up
    • 1975: Church Committee exposes MK-ULTRA and CIA assassination plots
    • 1986: Congress exposes Iran-Contra
    • 1996: San Jose Mercury News exposes CIA knowledge of Contra drug-dealing in L.A.
    • 1997: National Archives reveals Operation Northwoods

    I’m willing to help Truthers profit handsomely from their presumed belief that the 9/11 conspiracy could crack open at any moment and join the list of conspiracies that journalists and historians generally acknowledge as true.

    I will sell $10 9/11 confirmation futures that return 1000% if a 9/11 conspiracy (we can specify the details) is confirmed (i.e. journalists and historians generally acknowledge it as true) in the same year as the future is purchased.  Each subsequent year, the return increases by another 100%.

    So a $10 future purchased in 2013 pays out $110 if confirmation occurs in 2014, $120 if in 2015, etc.

    If I lose, my humiliation will be unlimited, by my total payout will be capped at $5000.  Earlier futures are senior to later ones. All purchasers and date-purchased will be public.

  92. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 109: Hey Brian, I have a better (and much simpler) idea. Why don’t you tell us of any instance, in the entire history of mankind, in which aluminum or magnesium alloys liquified on impact, as the “official story” of 9/11 claims. In the field or in a laboratory, I don’t care.

    You can’t do it, because those materials don’t react that way. Even if they did, it still wouldn’t explain how those newly-liquified alloys could have such cohesive strength that the wings of the alleged Boeing 757 (with a 124′-10″ wingspan) would flow into the 16′ diameter hole in the Pentagon, instead of splattering against the outer wall. Nor would it explain the lack of luggage and corpses. But that’s all moot, because aluminum and magnesium alloys don’t liquify under the normal temperature and air pressure of a September day in Washington, DC.

    I don’t know why you keep trying to push this bullshit story. Maybe it’s a pathetically weak attempt at “cognitive infiltration.” But nobody with a lick of sense believes it.

  93. Alan Pyeatt

    GP: “Vaccination deniers?” Seriously? YOU’RE the one who seems to be denying that vaccinations cause autism. I’m not weighing in with an opinion for or against, but don’t try to distort the language.

    And really, you haven’t heard of the UN Arms Treaty? Even Amnesty International has been pushing it, which led to my unsubscribing from their email list. If the Senate ratifies that atrocity, I won’t be able to buy another Beretta 9 mm. That sure sounds like the United Nations threatening our liberties to me.

  94. Brian Holtz

    Alan, why are you afraid of a 1000% profit? Why do you Truthers keep evading the questions I posted 5 years ago? When will you explain why almost no prominent libertarians — even anarcholibertarians — agree with your theory?

    I didn’t really expect any of you to accept my challenges, but I’ll take your one best shot. Quote any one sentence from something you consider the “official story” that contains the words “liquify” and “impact”, and I’ll tell you whether I believe it, and why.

    I hope for your sake you’re not talking about this paragraph from Popular Mechanics:

    Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.”

    That’s obviously not a claim that aluminum melted into liquid. It’s a claim about whether the plane at impact maintained large-scale structural integrity (like a solid), versus disintegrating into a set of co-moving pieces that could be divided by obstacles (as a liquid does when it encounters obstacles).

  95. George Phillies

    The claims that vaccinations cause autism are based on a prominent paper that has been retracted — the original authors identified an error in their procedures. Also, the claim was tested experimentally. Quebec, for starters, banned the mercurials some time ago. Their autism rate continued to climb. Claims that vaccines cause autism are even more fictional than claims that there is no global warming.

    There have been statistical analyses identifying a plausible cause, likely not unique, namely heavily edited television. The rapid cuts imaging seems to cause problems with children believing that the world makes sense or responds however crudely to causation. Communication, however, is a belief that the world responds to what you do.

    We may contrast the vaccine claims with claims that aspirin administered to children leads to Reyes syndrome. That had rather thorough analysis, turned out to be reproducible, and will eventually have a more detailed biochemical explanation.

    Holtz clearly explained the issues in the report. An airplane is much closer to being a steel bubble than a strong rigid object.

  96. Rod Stern

    Internet text debates are interesting, but live debates that can be videoed have a separate value as well. Phillies has already said no, and Holtz hasn’t answered, despite being asked directly. I thought I remembered him (or one of them) saying they would be interested in participating….but I don’t remember where I saw that.

    I generally don’t like to debate 9/11 theories very much, but I’d be interested in watching the video of such a live debate with 9/11 truthers and skeptics in the LP. It would have a value above and beyond other such debates held elsewhere.

  97. Brian Holtz

    RS (wink): been there, done that: http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2006/09/fact-checking-911-truth-movement.html

    Truthers have their factoids that they gullibly parrot. I have the ability and patience to fact-check Truther claims. A live debate would just be a pointless recitation of their factoids, that I would again systematically demolish with a little post-game research.

    Alan’s “aluminum liquified on impact” factoid is a perfect example (assuming he’s talking about the PM quote above). Truthers “know” dozens of such factoids, and can parrot them on cue. They don’t spend the 2-5 minutes it takes to fact-check each one, and a live debate doesn’t afford me that opportunity.

  98. Rod Stern

    ” A live debate would just be a pointless recitation of their factoids”

    I disagree. I think it would be great theater. You could use it for something – fundraising, or whatever.

  99. Gene Berkman

    BH @ 121 lists conspiracies that have been successfully exposed, and he includes:
    “1934: Congressional testimony reveals the Business Plot”

    I presume this is a reference to the claims by retired Gen. Smedley Butler about an attempt to undertake a coup to overthrow Roosevelt.

    I have read the book about this plot – “The Plot to Seize the White House” by Jules Archer, and what stands out is that Gen Butler had no corroborating witness, and was totally alone in making the charge.

    Other than Butler, the only person to promote the story was John Spivak, who wrote an article in the Communist magazine “New Masses” where he “…argued that the plot was part of a “conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups…”

    I am surprised you would include that in your list of plots that had been successfully exposed.

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    GB @ 129,

    “Other than Butler, the only person to promote the story …”

    Not sure what you mean by “promote.”

    The then-commander of the VFW publicly corroborated Butler’s claims, stating that he too had been approached about using a “veterans organization” to pull the alleged coup.

    The congressional committee before which Butler testified claimed, in its report, to have corroborated all but one of its claims directly, and that other one indirectly from correspondence between two accused of involvement.

  101. Thomas L. Knapp

    The problem with live debates with “inside job” truthers is that they’ve grasped a working debate technique:

    1) Make shit up;

    2) Your interlocutor, not feeling free to just make shit up, may not be able, in the environment of a live debate, to instantly research whatever bizarre shit you made up, in which case you “win;”

    2) If your interlocutor IS prepared for whatever shit you make up, accuse that interocutor of defending the conspiracy; then

    3) Wait awhile for things to quiet down and for people forget that you made that shit up; and

    4) Trot out the shit you made up again, since most people won’t remember that you got caught making shit up last time.

  102. Brian Holtz

    @129 Yeah, that one was marginal; consider it stricken from my list.

    @128 You imagine it would be “great theater” because you imagine that my eviscerations of Truther factoids can be generated in real time. In fact, each evisceration requires several minutes of research.

  103. Brian Holtz

    Speaking of lists of conspiracy theories, I challenge Truthers to lay their cards on the table about these conspiracies:

    • FDR foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor
    • MLK death
    • Oklahoma City
    • JFK death
    • RFK death
    • Vince Foster death
    • Marilyn Monroe death 
    • Federal Reserve, IMF, World Bank, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.
    • Suppressed automotive technology
    • KAL 007
    • TWA 800
    • Waco
    • Ruby Ridge
    • 9/11
    • AIDS
    • Philadelphia Experiment/Project Rainbow
    • Moon landing hoax
    • Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Masons, ZOG, Elders of Zion, Black Helicopters, etc.

    I challenge Truthers to list all of the topics above for which they believe in a conspiracy that is not currently credited by lamestream journalists/historians/Wikipedia/etc.

    My cards are on the table, Truthers. Where are yours?

  104. Brian Holtz

    @133 I would like to see Art Olivier — or anybody named Jill or Alan or Andy or KL — answer the challenges I’ve issued/repeated in this thread.

    *crickets*

  105. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 124: “Alan, why are you afraid of a 1000% profit?”

    Afraid? The only thing I’m afraid of is that I could spend a lot of time proving my case, and you would welsh on the bet, by remaining in denial over basic physics and mechanics of materials. I mean, come on, you really want “journalists and historians” to be the judge? Have you never heard of Murray Rothbard’s concept of “Court Historians?” Have you never read Harry Elmer Barnes’s essay on “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout?”

    We’ve already seen how the lamestream journalists and historians deal with this issue: they try to con us into believing a physical impossibility (several impossibilities actually, but I’m concentrating on the one that’s most obvious to lay people). Cold fusion made more sense than the idea of aluminum and magnesium alloys liquifying on impact, and I’m not going to play your game.

    Meanwhile, thousands of people have been murdered, our Constitution has almost completely been abandoned, and the real perpetrators have escaped scot free. And your buddies in the lamestream media keep telling us, “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

    The real question is why you want us to believe an obvious lie.

    As for the specifics: ” In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns.” O.k., then why didn’t any of the photos of the site show them? Each of those wings is more than 66′ long, so you don’t exactly hide them in the grass like Easter eggs.

    “What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.” Yes, that’s what happens when a solid material liquifies. It turns into a liquid. Nobody said anything about the metal melting, which is what happens when heat causes a material to liquify. Since heat wasn’t the cause, the only other possible reason for the wings to become “closer to a liquid than a solid mass” is the impact, and that is impossible. If you have some other theory, I would love to hear it.

  106. Alan Pyeatt

    If the Libertarian Party has under-performed in its 40 + year history, maybe part of the reason is that we have so many people who can’t (or won’t) recognize bullshit when they smell it.

  107. Alan Pyeatt

    GP @ 125: I wasn’t arguing whether vaccines cause autism or not. I was questioning you use of the term “vaccination deniers” when YOU are the one who is denying the validity of a claim. This looks to me like an attempt to use loaded language instead of reasoned argument.

  108. Alan Pyeatt

    Admiral Robert Theobald wrote one of the first “conspiracy theory” accounts of Pearl Harbor (http://www.richardsorge.com/literature/books/finalsecretofpearlharbor.pdf). Unfortunately, the publisher is defunct, but you can still find used copies available.

    Admiral Theobald was in charge of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet destroyers, and served under Admiral Husband Kimmel, who was scapegoated in the Pearl Harbor attack. He advised Admiral Kimmel during one of the many Congressional investigations. (Kimmel was not allowed to be represented by legal counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, nor to call his own witnesses.)

    Based on intelligence that was revealed during the 1946 investigation, it was obvious that the FDR administration intentionally provoked the Japanese attack, knew that Pearl Harbor would be the primary target (it turned out to be the only target), and knew that it would almost surely occur on December 7, 1941.

    Meanwhile, the Court Intellectuals ( Brain Holtz’s “journalists and historians”) whitewashed the event for posterity.

  109. Alan Pyeatt

    Correction to my post @ 136: “Court Intellectuals” was the term created by Murray Rothbard. It was an adaptation of the term “Court Historians” that was previously created by Harry Elmer Barnes.

  110. Rob Banks

    “vaccination deniers”

    Someone is seriously arguing that shooting small children up with mercury and other poisons is not bad for their health?

  111. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian:

    1. I’ve been thru this with you before;

    2. Your list from 2006 is laughably outdated. Many of those questions have been answered decisively, especially the Popular Mechanics jet bubble at the Pentagon nonsense;

    3. I’m insulted that you lump all Truthers together. That’s like saying someone can’t tell Asians apart because they all look alike:

    4. Brian, you and I simply speak different languages. I appreciate your honesty from last week that you never question the mainstream media. Well, I question everything and everyone at all timess. The divide between the was you see thing and the way I see things is just too enormous. We’ll probably never agree on much of anything.

    5. I’m computer-challenged right now while mine is in the shop. It’s tough to do anything on this silly netbook;

    6. I have more important things to do than discuss something with someone who has no genuine interest in learning. Cutting my toenails is a far better use of my time.

  112. Brian Holtz

    For those who may have missed it, there were two important revelations in Alan’s recent comments.

    First, he effectively admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas. It will never enjoy the sudden revelation/confirmation like the other 9 conspiracies I listed @121. Why? Why is Alan so sure that this vast, byzantine 9/11 conspiracy will never crack open? Because it’s not proven, and probably never will be.

    Second, Alan effectively admitted that I identified the source of his “aluminum liquified on impact” disinformation nugget. That was his lead-off hitter. That was his trump card. That was his go-to factoid. And it collapsed under just three minutes’ research by me. Popular Mechanics did not claim that the configuration of Pentagon damage was because of a “aluminum liquifying”. PM said that it was because a solid rigid structure disintegrated into a cloud of co-moving pieces that interacted with obstructions more like a liquid (flowing into gaps) than a solid (leaving a cartoonish outline of a plane).

    Either Alan uncritically parroted Truther disinformation, or he lied. Period.

    Alan, sir, you’ve just surrendered your credibility on this topic. Feel free to continue your name-calling and ad hominems, but I’m not going to debate any more of your 9/11 factual claims until you admit that you started off 0 for 1 here.

  113. Brian Holtz

    Alan @137: I asked you libertarian Truthers for an explanation of why 39 of the 40 most famous living libertarians are not Truthers. Is your official answer that they are all “court historians/intellectuals” like you think I am?

    Are there no limits to how widely you will expand your conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence that is so obviously inconsistent with it?

  114. Rob Banks

    “Why is Alan so sure that this vast, byzantine 9/11 conspiracy will never crack open? Because it’s not proven, and probably never will be.”

    I read what he wrote and that was nowhere close to what he said.

    “PM said that it was because a solid rigid structure disintegrated into a cloud of co-moving pieces that interacted with obstructions more like a liquid (flowing into gaps) than a solid (leaving a cartoonish outline of a plane).”

    Please explain. Where did the wings go? The lawn seemed to be intact, there was no molten metal there. The desks right around the hole still had papers laying on them that hadn’t burned.

  115. Rob Banks

    “I asked you libertarian Truthers for an explanation of why 39 of the 40 most famous living libertarians are not Truthers.”

    Maybe they have other things to think and write about that interest them more than 9/11.

  116. Brian Holtz

    Jill @139:

    1. No, I don’t recall you ever answering/accepting a single challenge I’ve ever made to 9/11 Truthers.

    2. If the questions on my list had been answered, you could point to the answers. I challenge you to do so.

    3. I don’t lump all Truthers together, but I do claim there are 4-6 core tenets of the standard 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theory. Above I already challenged you and Alan etc. to state which of those 6 tenets you don’t agree with. Again, no response.

    4. I appreciate your honesty from last week that you never question the mainstream media. Oh. My. God. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

    5. My challenges will still be waiting when you get your computer working again. My 10 questions have waited for seven years, so they can wait a little longer.

    6. has no genuine interest in learning. The web is littered with me schooling truthers (like I just did to Alan) by dragging them back to the primary sources they either ignore or misrepresent. In the next comment I’ll paste just one of the many things I’ve written reflecting my examination of the primary sources. I challenge you to cite anything you’ve written exhibiting a similar examination by you.

  117. Brian Holtz

    Jill, here is something I wrote in 2007:

    It’s flatly false to claim that one can balance the energy budget of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses using just Newtonian kinematics and dynamics — i.e., Newton’s three laws of motion and his gravitational law. It’s true that Newtonian mechanics lets you account for much of the supply side of the energy equation once the collapse was under way, but it’s utterly silent about whether the impacts and resulting fires could have caused the collapses. For that you need to model jet fuel burn rates, aerosolization, fireball size, overpressure, jet fuel containment on the impact floors, combustion of WTC and airplane contents, smoke plume buoyancy, air temperature, wind speed, external air supply to the fire, internal air supply to the fire (“stack effect”), compromise to fireproofing of structural steel, load imbalances due to impact structural damage, thermal expansion of floor framing and slabs, catenary action due to rigidity loss, degradation of steel elasticity modulus due to heating — all of which are discussed on pages 21-26 of chapter 2 of the FEMA report. Even more details are in FEMA’s 28-page Appendix A, and the June 2004 NIST interim report has over a hundred more pages of analysis of the twin towers’ collapse.

    Even if you ignore the cause of the collapse and just look at its effects, Newtonian mechanics is utterly inadequate for estimating the demand side of the collapse’s energy budget. For that you need sophisticated models to estimate the use of energy to pulverize concrete and other materials, eject debris, heat debris, deform steel and other materials, damage the WTC substructure and neighboring structures, etc. As a University of Michigan engineering alumnus, it’s embarrassing for me to hear my fellow UM alumnus claim that Newton’s laws and a sledgehammer are all you need to understand the collapse of the most massive structures mankind has ever engineered.

  118. Brian Holtz

    Rob @147: Alan clearly suggested @136 that “lamestream journalists and historians” will never accept his 9/11 conspiracy theory the way that they came to accept the 9 theories I listed @121.

    No bait-and-switch, please. I won’t discuss the Pentagon wings with anybody who doesn’t admit that Alan’s talk @122 of “aluminum liquified on impact” was clearly a misrepresentation of what Popular Mechanics said.

    Before I invest in making the score 2-0, I want it clear that the score is currently 1-0.

    P.S. If Jill has any honor or decency, she will apologize for saying I have “no genuine interest in learning”.

  119. Rob Banks

    Alan clearly suggested @136 that “lamestream journalists and historians” will never accept his 9/11 conspiracy theory the way that they came to accept the 9 theories I listed @121.

    He said it was because of their bias, which is a lot different from your characterization of what he said “Because it’s not proven, and probably never will be.”

    No bait-and-switch, please.

    I haven’t baited you, I just asked a question. Maybe you can’t answer it, or maybe you can but don’t want to. I have no idea, but in the meantime all I know is that the question has not been answered here.

    I won’t discuss the Pentagon wings with anybody who doesn’t admit that Alan’s talk @122 of “aluminum liquified on impact” was clearly a misrepresentation of what Popular Mechanics said.

    I’m not an expert on every aspect of the issue and have no interest in becoming one, so I am not particularly interested in that part.

    But I do have a question as to what exactly happened to the wings. If they had been torn off, or melted, there should have been evidence on the lawn, whether solid or eventually resolidified liquid.

    If someone has a good explanation for why the lawn seemed to be intact, while at the same time the hole was too small for the wings, and there were intact desks and papers in the immediate vicinity of the hole, please post that explanation.

    Otherwise, it will remain an open question in my mind. I’m not keeping score, so keep whatever score you wish – that has nothing to do with me.

    If Jill has any honor or decency, she will apologize for saying I have “no genuine interest in learning”.

    I can’t speak for Jill, but I’ll presume you are on the level unless and until you give me reason to think otherwise, and so far you have not.

  120. Jill Pyeatt

    Not.Getting.Sucked.In.

    By the way, Brian, you never answered my question from last week about how you account for huge inconsistencies from the media, such as numerous credible sources reporting that Osama bin Laden died in late 2001. I ‘m not the only one who doesn’t bother to respond.

  121. Rod Stern

    “The problem with live debates with “inside job” truthers..”

    OK then, how about explaining every question raised in, say, http://lc911finalcut.com/ ?

    Point by point answers to the whole film from start to finish, leaving no questions unanswered, anyone?

  122. Brian Holtz

    Rob @152: I said @145 that Alan “effectively admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas.” The part after my “Why?” is my theory of why he recognizes this at some level. I (obviously) don’t claim that Alan is perfectly rational and cannot hold inconsistent beliefs.

    I’m not so much interested in us walking through all the myriad details of the Pentagon event. None of that is news. I’m much more interested in whether/why, after brushing aside all my challenges, Alan’s go-to counter-challenge exploded in his face.

    Rod, my 10 questions have been waiting for seven years. If you think they’re answered at lc911finalcut, then point out the answers.

  123. Rod Stern

    If you think they’re answered at lc911finalcut, then point out the answers.

    9/11 final cut just asks questions, it doesn’t give any answers to anything at all. I’m interested in the answers to those questions it asks. If you can watch it and answer them, please do so. If not, I’ll just have to keep wondering.

  124. Brian Holtz

    Right, because asking Brian Holtz is the only way to answer a question about 9/11.

    You don’t have to “keep wondering”, “Rod”. You just have to start caring enough to do your homework.

    I’ve never claimed to “have all the answers”. What I claim is that I believe whatever hypothesis is most consistent with the available evidence.

  125. Brian Holtz

    Jill, you said if you google “Osama bin Laden death 20o1?, you’ll see many reports that he died then, from many different sources.

    Cite me the most egregious example you like, and watch me explain it to you.

    *crickets*

  126. Rod Stern

    I’m not interested in doing homework. Got lots of other issues I’m more interested in. I do have some questions though, and you seem to know a lot about it and be very confident in your positions, but if you want to not answer them and just tell me to “do homework” (whatever the hell that means in this case) I’m OK with not knowing the answers. It’s not that important to me, “Brian.”

  127. Rod Stern

    Maybe someone else can answer the questions from that film, since Holtz would rather direct people with other things to do towards unspecified “homework”? Knapp was the one who said there was a problem with debating self-proclaimed 9/11 truth experts in person, so maybe he could do a better job debating (or in this case answering the questions posed by) a film. The whole thing can be watched on their website.

  128. Brian Holtz

    Alan @136: I could spend a lot of time proving my case, and you would welsh on the bet, by remaining in denial over basic physics and mechanics of materials

    You don’t understand the bet at all. The whole point of the bet is to wait for the conspiracy to crack, like the 9 I listed. You don’t have to “prove” anything.

    The Bad Guys weren’t even competent enough to properly forge the Yellowcake documents, or to plant WMDs in Iraq. It’s simply bizarre for libertarians to credit the State with the omnicompetence necessary to pull off 9/11 and then eternally prevent the conspiracy from ever cracking wide open the way the 9 listed conspiracies did.

  129. Rod Stern

    “The Bad Guys weren’t even competent enough to properly forge the Yellowcake documents, or to plant WMDs in Iraq. It’s simply bizarre for libertarians to credit the State with the omnicompetence necessary to pull off 9/11 and then eternally prevent the conspiracy from ever cracking wide open the way the 9 listed conspiracies did.”

    I don’t know how much competence either operation would have taken, but I don’t think they are omnicompetent. Some operations they manage to pull off; others, like repeated attempts at killing Castro, they bungle.

  130. Brian Holtz

    Rod: I’m not interested in doing homework. Got lots of other issues I’m more interested in.

    Ditto. But some libertarian Truthers here on IPR have this month been writing stuff like “bullshit” and “intellectual cowards” and “liar” and “come at me”.

    Big. Mistake. 🙂

  131. Tom Blanton

    Obviously Mr. Holtz has proven the case that the official narrative of the 9/11 event is 100% accurate and truthful.

    I think Mr. Holtz will agree that the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission were just bullshitting when they said the government lied to them. The government can’t lie because the government is us and how can we lie to ourselves?

    Besides, why debate issues that will never be accepted by normal people?

    Just go read the 9/11 Commission’s Official Report and the Popular Mechanics article and you’ll have the whole 9/11 story, no more and no less, exactly as it happened.

  132. Jill Pyeatt

    TB @ 167. You’ve got it. Thanks for explaining things to those of us who obviously have faulty thinking.

  133. Brian Holtz

    the official narrative of the 9/11 event is 100% accurate and truthful.

    Strawman. I’ve repeatedly identified the most obvious cover-up in the 9/11 Commission report.

    But you Truthers probably don’t even know what I’m referring to.

    Rod @168: The point of my list @134 is to ask Truthers to lay down their cards. Of the 18 topics listed, for how many of them do you have topic-specific knowledge that leads you to question the consensus narrative of mainstream/lamestream journalists and historians?

    Truthers keep complaining that the sheeple are unwilling to face the Truth about favorite conspiracy X, but they get suddenly shy when asked about the Truth of other conspiracies.

  134. Brian Holtz

    Jill @169, given your tone-deafness to my sarcasm about your own earlier Brian-is-100%-gullible rhetoric, I’m starting to think you actually have convinced yourself of it.

    That’s the problem with conspiracy-think: to keep your worldview from crumbling, you have to keep adding epicycles: infiltrators, 100% gullibility, not-interested-in-learning, nearly all famous libertarians are “court intellectuals”, etc.

    Thank you for letting us measure your interest in “Truth”.

  135. Rod Stern

    “Of the 18 topics listed, for how many of them do you have topic-specific knowledge that leads you to question the consensus narrative of mainstream/lamestream journalists and historians?”

    I’ve been working my way through the list one by one and pointing to good resources I know of. Some of the things you mention are wacky bullshit, like ZOG. Waco, OKC, and Pearl Harbor are the ones I have identified so far (there may have been more but that’s all I remember at the moment) where I’ve read or watched good evidence for official duplicity that I have pointed to in this discussion already.

  136. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 171: “Thank you for letting us measure your interest in “Truth”.’

    Now you’re getting it. I have no interest in participating in this thread. It’s totally “Been there, did that”. If you want to be educated, educate yourself. I have too many things going on.

  137. Rod Stern

    “Ruby Ridge”

    I’m not aware of the conspiracy theory there. Can anyone tell me more?

  138. Brian Holtz

    JP@173: It’s totally “Been there, did that”.

    I’m still interested in a citation showing that you’ve ever dug into the primary sources as much as I have e.g. @150. But I guess you won’t be apologizing for saying I have “no genuine interest in learning”. Perhaps we can agree that that statement speaks volumes about our respective character.

    I have no interest in participating in this thread.

    Well, if you ever suddenly regain interest in your challenge to me about bin Laden media reports in 2001, let me know. But note that the topic of 9/11 was introduced into this thread in comment 2, by someone using the name “Jill Pyeatt”.

    Each time you bring up 9/11 in the future, I’ll keep asking you why someone using the name Pyeatt misled us here about an anti-conspiracy source claiming that “aluminum liquified on impact” at the Pentagon. I wonder how many times/places Alan has dispensed that factoid. I wonder whether he’ll keep doing so.

    This “educate yourself” advice would better be aimed a little closer to home, methinks.

  139. Brian Holtz

    It says: “Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.”

    Jill’s original question was: “I’m curious what sources you would use to learn whether he died when Obama said, or back in 2001, when many people believe he died.”

    Contrary to Jill’s apparent assumption, there’s nothing in that 2001 news report that would have set me up for an epistemological crisis when Osama was killed in 2011.

  140. Rod Stern

    I’ve lost track of what challenge that would be. I thought at this juncture we were discussing whether the government’s story about Bin Laden’s death is plausible. The “buried at sea according to Islamic scriptures” is obvious bullshit. As for when he died, I’m open minded on that one.

  141. Brian Holtz

    I’ve issued 5 challenges to Truthers @109, a challenge to Alan @124, a challenge to libertarian Truthers @134, a question to Alan @146, 3 challenges to Jill @149, another to Jill @160, and a challenge to Blanton-style Truthers @170.

    at this juncture we were discussing whether the government’s story about Bin Laden’s death is plausible

    No, I was trying to answer Jill’s question about how I reconcile media reports when they’re not conclusive or unequivocal. She lost interest in the topic when I called her rhetorical bluff on it.

    It’s hilarious how Truthers love to mock the “lamestream” media consensus, but when they encounter someone equipped to defend/explain that consensus, they suddenly deny that it even exists.

  142. Rod Stern

    Oh. Well, I was just discussing Bin Laden’s death, but carry on with your jihad 🙂

  143. Brian Holtz

    Re-read @54, @105, and @165 and you’ll understand my lack of interest in adding new topics to those that I’m discussing in this thread.

  144. Rod Stern

    I’m not suggesting you should. I just responded the comments I saw. If you don’t want to go there, then don’t go there. No gun to your head here.

  145. Smart Alex

    Brian, it doesn’t look like Mrs. Pyeatt’s gonna come around. Perhaps it’s just you she doesn’t wish to speak to.

  146. Rod Stern

    I’m not saying there was an inside job – I’m a more questions than answers guy myself, and admittedly not expert enough to play the role of the prosecutor (nor would I want to be). But… getting rid of the evidence does make the USGov look guilty.

    Why was all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of, instead of being preserved to be studied and have studies be independently verified? Why was Bin Laden assassinated, rather than captured and questioned? And please don’t tell me it’s because he was firing a weapon. I would hope that Navy SEALs would know how to incapacitate an enemy without killing him – say, by shooting off his hands and knees, among other things.

  147. Brian Holtz

    It’s flatly false that “all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of”. Again: you don’t know what you think you know. When something you “know” about 9/11 turns out to be false, you can either 1) uncritically repeat the next claim that Truthers have thrown up against the wall, or 2) re-examine the faulty process by which false Truther claims become things you “know”.

    “Getting rid of the evidence” is a really easy claim to parrot. Confirmation bias, much?

    Five minutes’ web searching reveals what actually happened to the crucial steel rubble: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101430

    Does that 112-page appendix look like a cover-up to you? Do the Truther sources for your “getting rid of the evidence” meme ever bother to link to primary sources like the NIST reports? Why not? What is it they don’t want you to know?

    Getting rid of the evidence, indeed.

  148. Tom Blanton

    I’ve never asserted that I know exactly what happened on 9/11, so by definition, I can’t be a conspiracy theorist as I have no theory to put forth. I merely question the veracity of what has been asserted by the government, as do the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission.

    Apparently, Brian Holtz knows exactly what happened on 9/11, but he’s not telling. Anyone who questions what he refuses to articulate is merely a nut-job conspiracy theorist, and as all shills for the state will tell you, conspiracy theorists are dangerous crackpots.

    Now, Holtz has demanded that anyone questioning the official 9/11 narrative answer the 10 questions he has asked which put forth narrow assumptions about what he thinks all “Truthers” believe.

    Essentially Holtz is saying that the “expert” opinion that he bases his received wisdom on is superior to the “expert” opinion that his “Truther” enemies have based their received wisdom on – even when these crazy conspiracy theorists state no theory.

    I suppose Holtz, besides having a monopoly on truth, also has the power to read minds.

    Now, I can only assume Holtz is an idiot and/or a liar and I refuse to answer any of his questions until he answers 40 questions I have prepared in addition to all questions everyone else may have of him.

    Unless he is willing to play this game, the rules of which he made up, he is to be considered a fool and a shill for state lies and deceptions regarding 9/11.

    But regardless of whether Holtz plays the game he invented, I will consider him to be a promoter of limited authoritarianism, an unreliable source for information, a dishonest political hack, and an emotionally stunted adult seeking validation from others by winning these little games where he makes up all the rules – while exempting himself from these rules.

    Until politicians and bureaucrats stop lying, regardless of the subject matter, any theory that anyone puts forth questioning their truthfulness or motivation is fair. The politicians and bureaucrats con stop these awful “conspiracy theories” at any time by merely telling the truth. But, most of us know that will never happen.

  149. Brian Holtz

    Myth: “all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of”

    Reality: From the recovered steel, sufficient representative samples from each important class of steels are available for a full examination (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses). From Table 4–1, it can be seen that 10 of the 14 types of steel specified for the columns are represented, and 10 of the 12 grades of spandrel material have been identified. Additionally, sample ASCE-3 (as-built location in the building not identified) has a flange stamping of 45 for the minimum yield requirement, which would increase the total number of perimeter column material types to 11. One important note is that from the observed stampings of the recovered elements and other documents (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2B), it appears that 100 ksi steel was substituted for the 85 ksi and 90 ksi grades in the construction of the exterior panels (Table 3–6). Considering both column and spandrel material, samples of all grades specified for the perimeter panels are available for metallurgical and mechanical property evaluation. There are a total of 106 individual perimeter columns (97 columns with known as-built locations and 9 columns from unidentified panels sections where the column type and minimum strength values could be deciphered from the stampings located on the base of the columns) and 87 pieces of spandrel material. Tables 4–2 and 4–3 list the specified minimum yield strength/gauge combinations recovered for the columns and spandrels, respectively. While only two of the four grades of steels were obtained (36 ksi and 42 ksi) for the core columns (Table 3–3), 99 percent of the total number of core columns were fabricated from these two grades. Fo r the floor truss material, the samples could not be identified as to their precise, as-built locations within the buildings. However, initial chemical and mechanical property analyses have shown that both minimum yield strength materials specified have been recovered.

    Rod, you need to ask yourself: how and why did the Truthers arrange for you to “know” that “all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of”? How and why did the Truthers arrange for Alan Pyeatt to “know” that the “official story” is that “aluminum liquified on impact” at the Pentagon?

    Truther malware has infected your and Alan’s brains with false “knowledge”. At some point, you guys have to take responsibility for disinfecting yourselves, and stop depending on me to fact-check every Truther claim you’ve soaked up.

  150. Brian Holtz

    See how the Truthers move the goalposts? In comment 2, we heard “There is tons of science available proving that the official 9/11 story cannot be accurate.” Now, the mantra is “we just have questions, we don’t claim to know anything”.

    I call bullshit.

    Alan Pyeatt had a question about “aluminum liquified on impact”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.

    Rod had a question about why the government “got rid of the evidence”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.

    Blanton can’t bear to watch such debunking, so he makes up laughable strawmen about what I secretly believe, and calls me names like “fool” and “shill” and “idiot” and “liar”.

    Discerning readers will understand what such name-calling says about the state of this debate, and about Blanton’s and my respective interest in Truth.

  151. Brian Holtz

    Blanton @186 repeats another Truther factoid: I merely question the veracity of what has been asserted by the government, as do the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission.

    But there is nothing in what the Co-Chairs say that supports the standard inside-job controlled-demolition Truther account. Their “veracity” concerns are much more narrow than what Blanton cryptically and misleadingly suggests.

    However, if you’ve actually read what Kean and Hamilton have said, then it’s clear they know what is the most obvious cover-up in their own 9/11 Commission report.

    I challenged Blanton @168 to identify that particular cover-up, but he didn’t. Why? He probably hasn’t even read the Commission Report, or the details of what Kean and Hamilton have said.

    Blanton claims to have questions, but he exhibits no interest or ability to get answers.

  152. Rod Stern

    BH @185

    I’m willing to stipulate that I could be wrong about the disposal of the rubble. I don’t feel like reading a 112 page report, so perhaps you could tell me whether the evidence is available to examined by other, independent groups of researchers?

    Also, are you willing to agree that Bin Laden could and should have been captured alive rather than assassinated, and that “buried at sea according to Islamic scriptures” is transparent bullshit?

    I don’t repeat any claims uncritically, and I’m not necessarily a truther in the sense you seem to use the term – just someone interested in the truth, not accepting either the government’s official conspiracy theory nor any other conspiracy theory as proven fact, and not willing to spend enough time on it to become an expert – yet still somewhat curious as to what really happened.

  153. Rod Stern

    “See how the Truthers move the goalposts? In comment 2, we heard “There is tons of science available proving that the official 9/11 story cannot be accurate.” Now, the mantra is “we just have questions, we don’t claim to know anything”.”

    I’ve never moved any goalposts, nor have I claimed to know much (I have some things I think I know, but I’m always willing to reexamine them in the light of evidence – if that evidence is in a digestible format). Please don’t mix me up with whoever else or their “mantra”.

  154. Rod Stern

    I call bullshit.

    Alan Pyeatt had a question about “aluminum liquified on impact”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.

    Rod had a question about why the government “got rid of the evidence”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.

    Blanton can’t bear to watch such debunking, so he makes up laughable strawmen about what I secretly believe, and calls me names like “fool” and “shill” and “idiot” and “liar”.

    I never called you any of those things, nor have I stated that aluminum liquefied on impact. I did remember reading that the rubble was disposed of, and I am willing to admit I could be wrong. So why does that make me part of some “mantra” or “goalpost moving” or team?

    I don’t know who did 9/11 – I have no theory about it, I just have questions and suspicions. No mantra, just fact.

  155. Rod Stern

    Unlike some people I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong.

    So now that we have that covered, what about the assassination of Bin Laden and disposing of his body “at sea according to Islamic tradition”? Anyone?

  156. Brian Holtz

    Sorry, Rod, but my preference is to understand how you came to believe that “all the rubble from 9/11 [was] quickly disposed of”. I’m not going to move on to debunking other factoids in your head until we spend some time understanding the process by which they get there.

    I know you want to be considered Truther Lite (i.e. questions only, like Blanton claims to be), but your questions betray you, as they embed false Truther claims.

    It’s not a good use of my time to answer your every question about the conspiracies you claim merely to have questions about. A better use of my time is to hold up a mirror to the Truther memes that have infected you, and get you interested in building an epistemological immune system that can root out your infections, and prevent new ones.

    That includes you understanding other patients’ symptoms, like Alan’s liquified aluminum, and Blanton’s insinuations about the 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs.

    If you’re not interested in examining these three case studies, then we may not have much more to discuss here.

  157. Rod Stern

    I don’t “want to be considered” anything, and I don’t remember where I read any particular thing.

    I’ve given you the courtesy of assuming you are being on the level. If you are not giving me the same courtesy and think I am being surreptitious, I’ll keep that in mind.

    My questions are completely honest; no hidden agenda. If Brian Holtz chooses to believe otherwise, oh well, such is life; other people can answer those questions, or no one can answer them and I can be left wondering. I’m OK with that.

  158. Brian Holtz

    When I said “your questions betray you”, I wasn’t implying that you are being dishonest. I was saying that you have miscategorized yourself as a questions-only Truther Lite, because your questions embed full-blown Truther conspiracy claims — claims that happen to be demonstrably false.

    I don’t repeat any claims uncritically

    You did above, when you stated ““all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of” as a purported fact.

    other people can answer those questions, or no one can answer them and I can be left wondering

    Those aren’t your only options. Two more leap to mind: 1) you can try to answer them yourself (i.e. do some of the work that you’re asking me to do), and 2) you can show me any evidence whatsoever that the discovery of Truther disinformation in your brain has led you to question how it got there, how to root out what remains, and how to keep more from getting in.

    I don’t know all the answers. Hell, I barely know any of the answers. I just know how to find answers. So when you ask me questions, you’re asking me to do your Googling for you. Well, I’m just not going to do much more of that — unless you take option (2) above.

  159. Brian Holtz

    P.S. Repeated exposure to the title of this thread leads me to clarify: I disagree with George’s position that “These people are a detriment to our party, and should be deported”.

    Being a 9/11 Truther doesn’t necessarily make someone a detriment to our party. 9/11 Truthing can be done in ways that are more detrimental to the LP or less, and even the more detrimental ways can be outweighed by other good work that the Truther does for the LP.

    Nobody should be “deported” form the LP for whacky conspiracy views. Instead, the rest of us just have to make sure that 1) the public doesn’t identify those views as being the LP’s views, and 2) the Truthers don’t use LP office/candidacy to promote that misidentification.

  160. Rod Stern

    ” I was saying that you have miscategorized yourself as a questions-only Truther Lite”

    I haven’t miscategorized myself. If I see questions that I haven’t seen answered or don’t remember seeing answered before, I might repeat them until someone gives me a reasonable answer, like you did about the rubble. That doesn’t mean I am wedded to the inside job, Israeli job, Al Qaeda job or any other particular theory – I’m genuinely not.

    “You did above, when you stated ““all the rubble from 9/11 quickly disposed of” as a purported fact.”

    That’s what I understood the fact to be. I’ve asked the question before and this is the first time I remember seeing an answer, so I thought it was a fact. That doesn’t mean I’m uncritical of it – if I see evidence to the contrary I take it into account.

    “1) you can try to answer them yourself (i.e. do some of the work that you’re asking me to do), ”

    I’m interested, but not that interested. If someone (not necessarily you) gives me a good answer to some of the questions I’ll take that into account, otherwise I have more interesting things to spend time on.

    “2) you can show me some evidence whatsoever that the discovery of Truther disinformation in your brain has led you to question how it got there, how to root out what remains, and how to keep more from getting in.”

    That’s your concern, not mine, and I have no way of remembering where I read or heard every thing I have ever heard. To the extent that I care about the issue at all, I just have some questions and you or someone (anyone) else can answer them, or they remain questions in my mind.

    I’m OK with that, as I’ve said. If I wanted to spend the time to become a 9/11 expert, I would, but I don’t and I won’t.

    ” So when you ask me questions, you’re asking me to do your Googling for you.”

    Nope, I’m not asking you personally to do anything, I’m saying that if anyone out there knows and wants to tell me, please do so. I’ve already spent more time on this the last few days than I think it deserves, however.

    However when you say “See how the Truthers move the goalposts? In comment 2, we heard “There is tons of science available proving that the official 9/11 story cannot be accurate.” Now, the mantra is “we just have questions, we don’t claim to know anything”.

    I call bullshit.

    Alan Pyeatt had a question about “aluminum liquified on impact”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.

    Rod had a question about why the government “got rid of the evidence”. That “question” embedded a false claim. Debunked.”

    You seem to imply that Mr. Pyeatt and I are part of some “truther” collective.

    Actually, he has his opinions (IIUC he believes that inside job is the most likely explanation, or maybe he goes even further than that) and I have mine. The two are different. So whatever pattern you think you have discovered in our comments does not actually exist.

  161. Smart Alex

    It’s hilarious how Mr. Holtz can write a bunch of words, then announced he’s ” debunked” some issue. Apparently, his sources are always 100 percent accurate, whether they make sense or not. Have you convinced anyone reading this thread?

  162. Rod Stern

    Yes, I think he has put forward good evidence that the rubble was not disposed of. I’m still not sure if that means any independent group can come in and do their own tests, but at least the possibility remains open in the future, and maybe they can.

  163. Smart Alex

    The description of what happened to the plane at the Pentagon remains incredulous. I’ ll continue to do my own research, thank you.

  164. Rod Stern

    Yeah, I’m not convinced on that one either. But as I said that’s OK, I can live with it.

  165. Brian Holtz

    Rod, your @199 tells me all I need to know about your level of interest in option (2) @197. If what you just learned about rubble doesn’t budge your assessment of the priors embedded in all the other “questions” you’ve soaked up from Truthers, then it’s just not worth my time to Google up more debunkings for your questions.

    @202: for all practical purposes, all the rubble has been disposed of by now. If you think that points to an inside-job conspiracy+coverup, well, that doesn’t help distinguish you from full-blown Truthers.

    @201: Smart Alex shows zero indication of having even opened the 112-page appendix, but he dismisses it with a drive-by strawman about “100 percent accurate”. Typical Trutheritis: demand evidence, then ignore the delivered evidence and concoct meta-complaints about it: it might not be flawless, it might not be eternally available for arbitrary re-examination, etc.

    Sigh.

  166. Rod Stern

    I’m completely willing to accept as plausible, even likely, that many of the questions may be based on false premises. I’ve never thought otherwise.

    What you choose to do I can’t control, but I still have questions until someone does choose to answer them comprehendably, if anyone ever does.

    As for whether, if there is no rubble available for independent groups of scientists to study, that is evidence of an inside job – it makes the government look guilty, much as getting rid of Bin Laden and even his corpse does – but it’s not conclusive proof of anything.

  167. Brian Holtz

    “[The fact that the government hasn’t eternally preserved a million tons of rubble] makes the government look guilty”

    Sure, to anybody who is more interested in seeing governments look guilty than in educating himself about what actually has been learned from the rubble.

    Metallurgy is boring. Conspiracies are fun.

  168. Rod Stern

    No, to anyone that doesn’t automatically trust one study and wants to see other independent groups be able to examine the evidence for themselves.

    But it’s true, I’ll cop to not having a lot of interest in metallurgy myself. I’m more interested in having multiple groups of people who are be able to study the evidence themselves and draw their own conclusions. I don’t think you need to preserve a million tons of rubble for that.

  169. just saying

    The “rubble” wasn’t “quickly disposed of” on a boat to China. That was a cover story for the fact that the vast majority of the buildings simply disintegrated and floated away in less than 10 seconds, courtesy of classified weaponry developed by NASA, SAIC, Raytheon, ARA et alia.

  170. Rod Stern

    @209 Tell me more. I’ve seen pictures of big piles of rubble. Were they photoshopped or something in your view?

  171. Brian Holtz

    automatically trust one study

    Standard Truther strawman.

    In fact, there was also a study by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

    What’s “automatic” is that for any given study, the Truthers are ready to say it’s part of the conspiracy, and for any given piece of evidence, the Truthers are ready to say it’s faked. The conspiracy automatically grows to explain away the mountain of hard evidence arrayed against it.

    “Smart Alex” (wink) asked “Have you convinced anyone reading this thread?” Well, 39 of the 40 most famous libertarians apparently remain unconvinced about the conspiracy. These are anti-government activists who mysteriously remain silent about what would be by far the most infamous crime by the U.S. government in a century or more. What could be better libertarian propaganda than that?

    I’m willing to bet real money that not only will the Truthers fail to ever crack this case open for the audience of journalists and historians, but they will also fail to persuade even the tiny anti-government audience of leading libertarians public intellectuals.

    Note the deafening silence of Truthers here, not even trying to explain why libertarian intellectuals nearly unanimously disagree with them.

    Note also that nobody here interested in 9/11 “Truth” has even bothered to ask about what I’ve mentioned multiple times as the most obvious government coverup related to 9/11. Instead, they spew strawmen about “automatically trust”.

    Sigh.

  172. Rod Stern

    “In fact, there was also a study by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.”

    That’s better than one. But it still doesn’t allow anyone who is interested, and has the time and expertise to do their own study, to examine the evidence, which would have been a lot better. Oh well.

  173. Brian Holtz

    would have been a lot better

    For what value of N could you finally be bothered to crack open the Nth study and look inside? We already know that N must be greater than 2.

    Zoidberg: All 6,000 hulls have been breached!

    [Fry falls to his knees.]

    Fry: Oh, the fools! If only they’d built it with 6,001 hulls! When will they learn?

  174. From Der Sidelines

    Rod Stern, some friendly advice:

    Do your self a favor and quit arguing with Holtz. He tends to be a clueless tool, never right, and never admitting it, and all you’ll do is waste posting space here while he twists and spins in the wind like a bedsheet on a clothesline with a cold front coming in.

    Redlich is worried about trolls? Well, Holtz is the poster boy except that he uses his own name and somehow confuses plenty of people in the LP into thinking he’s intelligent and anything resembling a leader.

  175. Brian Holtz

    Not sure which is funnier: 1) FDS hiding behind a pseudonym to hurl his childish insults even as he highlights my use of my own name, 2) FDS using a pseudonym when his style of childish insults gives away his identity, or 3) FDS heaping inadvertent (and undeserved) compliments on me.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    As to the rubble being “quickly disposed of,” there were still huge piles of it at Ground Zero when I visited New York in April of 2003.

    As to the claim that Holtz is unquestioningly accepting of the “official narrative” of 9/11, the fact is that he has questioned/challenged that narrative in at least one key respect multiple times over the nearly 12 years since the attack.

    I’m agnostic on the “inside job” hypothesis. If any evidence for it is ever produced, I’ll consider that evidence as objectively as I know how to.

    But I’ve been asking for evidence for more than a decade now and all I get from the advocates of the hypothesis are talking points that fall to pieces under scrutiny, and then recycled as soon as their promulgators assume everyone has forgotten that they fell to pieces the previous time.

  177. Rod Stern

    “For what value of N could you finally be bothered to crack open the Nth study and look inside? ”

    The issue is not me cracking open studies and values of N, the issue is whether those people who are trained to evaluate such issues and want to do their own studies did/do have access to the evidence. This comment is not meant to give or imply an answer to that question, but to explain the general principle behind the inquiry.

  178. Robert Capozzi

    186 tb: Until politicians and bureaucrats stop lying, regardless of the subject matter, any theory that anyone puts forth questioning their truthfulness or motivation is fair. The politicians and bureaucrats con stop these awful “conspiracy theories” at any time by merely telling the truth. But, most of us know that will never happen.

    me: Blanton lays down the marker of all markers! Everyone lies, I dare say even TB!

    It also seems true that not everyone lies always, even bureaucrats. What we can’t know is when they are lying or telling the truth, but it seems like TB has a view on this matter, since he claims that conspiracy theories will cease with truth-telling. This strongly implies that TB has the inside line on what the truth of 9/11 is, but we’ve not heard it from the (lying) bureaucrats.

    How does TB know this? Maybe on this one, the official story is correct.

    Maybe TB doesn’t know, he just BELIEVES that the source is not credible on anything.

    Belief and knowledge are very different things.

    Knowing the difference is the path.

  179. George Phillies

    @212 The ASCE study, which was done first, was most of the people in the country who are really top-line to investigate such things. The Federal study, which came later, came to the same major conclusions.

  180. Rod Stern

    Completely irrelevant to me which came first. Only whether independent studies were able to access evidence or not.

  181. Brian Holtz

    Here are just some of the ways in which I’m critical of the “official” 9/11 narrative.

    1) They were cowards, who hate us for our freedoms. Obvious BS on both counts.

    2) Bush gave the shootdown order. It’s obvious from the 9/11 Commission’s report that this alleged phone call between Bush and Cheney never happened. Cheney was not in the chain of command, and had no legal authority to originate the order, but he did so anyway. That the order was a good idea is why the 9/11 Commission blinked when the White House stonewalled this part of the investigation, and the Commission didn’t dare connect the dots that they left for all to see in their report.

    3) Air defenses could have shot down Flight 93. NORAD later wanted us to think it could have shot down the second hijacked jetliner inbound to Washington D.C., but in fact the Langley F-16’s that were the only three fighters in position had “negative clearance” to shoot. Cheney had been giving the order to shoot since at least 10:10 am, but NORAD did not forward it to the regional air defense command (NEADS) until 10:31 am — and NEADS failed to forward it to the Langley pilots! Flight 93 would have hit the Capitol by 10:23 am. At 10:38 am, the Secret Service had bypassed the NORAD chain of command and got some Air National Guard F-16’s launched from Andrews with direct clearance from Cheney to shoot — except they were unarmed! One of the pilots now says she was prepared to ram her plane into a jet if necessary, but articles about her never mention that she was scrambled too late to catch Flight 93.

    Note that government bravado about air defense competence has only exacerbated the conspiracy theories, for obvious reasons.

    4) Government first responders were the heroes of 9/11. Not only did the designated first responders bungle air defense, but at the WTC they mainly just added to the body count (by over 400). C^3 (command, control, communications) at the WTC site was simply inept. The media doesn’t like to admit that our overpaid government firefighters are not prepared to fight a fire that big that high. The real heroes of 9/11 were the non-government responders, both in the WTC and (especially) on Flight 93. One question nobody dares ask is: why didn’t the passengers on AA11 (the 2nd WTC jet) similarly revolt? We know from at least one phone call that they were considering it. They would have saved about 800 lives (minus the number of people whose evacuation of the other tower was accelerated by the first collapse).

    I’ve made all the above comments before, in various places. Will re-posting them now pry from e.g. Jill an apology for her calumny that I believe whatever the official narrative says about 9/11?

    I’m not holding my breath.

  182. Rod Stern

    “somehow confuses plenty of people in the LP into thinking he’s intelligent ”

    He’s obviously intelligent, regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

  183. Tom Blanton

    Garsh darnit, I wish I was a super-genius mind-reading sage like Mr. Holtz and Mr. Capoozi.

    I sure wish that when given multiple narratives and fact sets, sometimes from the same source, that I had the innate wisdom to know what to believe and what to discard as mere conspiracy theory.

    Now, Capoozi has stumbled onto to the secret of divine wisdom somehow and has become so enlightened that even when government hacks recite multiple versions of facts, Capoozi can somehow synthesize it all together into one big ball of truth, because in his infinite wisdom and in his heart he knows that we all lie, and after all what is truth?

    Is truth really true, or is it the perception of truth? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between what one perceives someone else’s perception to be and the lie we all tell ourselves. Only Capoozi knows. Oh yeah, and Holtz’s received wisdom from the chosen experts.

    Or has Holtz investigated the circumstances of 9/11 himself, testing the metals in his lab and interviewing the material witnesses? I suppose at the very least he has personally vetted the expert architects, engineers and forensic scientists himself in order to determine which ones are credible and which ones are conspiracy theorists.

    If not, he is more of a jackass then the “Truthers” he loathes. I think his real fear is that others will judge his beloved cult negatively if others think that his comrades are crazy conspiracy theorists. How embarrassing that would be to someone who craves acceptance by the mainstream normal people.

  184. Tom Blanton

    I suspect that Rod Stern is Brian Holtz, who works for a secret government agency nobody has even heard of yet.

    This is based on internet research. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I will come up with 15 questions to ask you and if you refuse to answer them, I will answer them for you.

    By the way, it is not “here we go again,” it should be “there you go again”.

  185. Rod Stern

    Wow Blanton, you caught me/us. It’s the beginning of the end for the global conspiracy, it will all unravel now. Damn you!

  186. Andy

    Are Brian Holtz or George Phillies or any of the other so called “Libertarians” out there who spout the statist propaganda line about 9/11 ever going to accept my challenge for a public debate on the subject to be held at a Libertarian Party convention and to be video recorded and posted online, or are they going to continue to run away like intellectual cowards as they have been doing for they past several years every time I’ve issued this challenge?

    It is past time to put up or shut up.

    If you accept the challenge, then I say we put it together for Columbus in 2014.

  187. Andy

    This is from the Wikipedia entry on Cass Sunstein: “Conspiracy Theories” and government infiltration

    Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from “cascades” of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,[28] where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”[28] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as “extremist groups.” They also suggest responses: “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”[29]

    Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting “nongovernmental officials”; they suggest that “government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes,” further warning that “too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed.”[28] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, “might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” This position has been criticized by some commentators,[30][31] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[32] Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[33][34][35]

    Sunstein responded to criticism, captured on video, and claimed: “I have written hundreds of articles, and I remember some and not others. That one I don’t remember very well…. But whatever was said in that article, my role in government is to oversee federal rulemaking in a way that is wholly disconnected from the vast majority of my academic writing, including that.”[36]

  188. Jill Pyeatt

    I would suggest Brian Holtz debate Art Olivier. We could make a fortune selling tickets and popcorn.

  189. Brian Holtz

    I’ve issued 7 challenges to Truthers @109, @134, and @170. Andy doesn’t dare accept any of them, but he throws around the word “coward” because I’m not interested in standing next to a Truther spouting disinformation nuggets that each require 2-5 minutes’ of research to debunk.

    Notice that Andy has been very scarce in this thread after initially talking big about his “challenge” @53 and @103.

    Ditto for Alan Pyeatt, who Andy suggested as my debate opponent. Pyeatt hasn’t stuck around to defend his lead-off factoid (about “aluminum liquified on impact”) after its insta-debunking.

  190. Brian Holtz

    Blanton: has Holtz investigated the circumstances of 9/11 himself, testing the metals in his lab and interviewing the material witnesses?

    If Truthers followed Blanton’s standard, then we wouldn’t be having any discussions like this.

    I think his real fear is that others will judge his beloved cult negatively if others think that his comrades are crazy conspiracy theorists.

    Blanton apparently didn’t read my comment @198.

  191. Jill Pyeatt

    Alan Pyeatt left at 5:00 yesterday for a monthly Cherokee gathering, and hasn’t returned home yet. I’m sure he hasn’t been near a computer.

    I’ve spent last night and today working on a new business I’m working on. In other words, we’ve both got more important things to do than argue with Brian.

    The fact that 24 hrs later, he’s still mocking us should be quite telling to IPR readers. I’m so confident in what I’ve learned that I don’t have to show off and degrade someone else.

    And no, Brian, I’m not going to apologize for saying that you don’t have any genuine interest in learning. If you did, you might have visited http://www.ae911truth.org and learned that more than 1,000 architects and engineers (Alan is one of them) disagree with the reports you’ve been citing.

    Really, Brian, I’m not ever going to argue anything with you. Stop looking like a jerk trying to bait me.

  192. From Der Sidelines

    @222: He’s nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. He just likes to argue because it’s the only way he can feel adequate–kinda like Carpozzi if he had swallowed a dictionary. He can’t bring himself up without bring others down.

    As for being childish, well, if that’s what he thinks, well, he gets what he gives and deserves, because that’s the level he dysfunctions at.

  193. Tom Blanton

    Actually, since Mr. Holtz would like to paint me as some frothing “Truther” conspiracy theorist when I offer no theory regarding 9/11 other than the government has not told the truth about the matter, it is fair for me to portray him as a shill for the government. If not, why not?

    Holtz paints with a broad brush anyone who questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as a lunatic “Truther” and he wants others to believe that all those he labels as “Truthers” think and act and some monolithic fashion, espousing one certain conspiracy theory based on one set of easily refutable facts. This is simply bullshit and he knows it – and I believe most people know it.

    I have never advanced any theory such as Bush planned and executed 9/11. I have no idea who planned and executed 9/11 and whatever the government is covering up is unknown to me, although at minimum it is gross negligence and complete incompetence.

    But, it seems to me, however much mush heads like Capoozi whine, it is fair to advance outrageous conspiracy theories against government officials when it is obvious they are lying or covering up something. As I said, most so-called crazy conspiracy theories could be squelched if the government hacks would simply tell the fucking truth from the jump.

    How about the big shootout between cops and the teen terrorist of Boston? According to the owner of the boat where the kid was hiding, the boat looks like swiss cheese. But now the government says the kid had no gun.
    How do you have a shootout with someone who is unarmed?

    Maybe Capoozi can meditate on that a while and let us know what really happened. It looks like a conspiracy to kill the kid rather than take him in, but why? Maybe Holtz can inform us which government mouthpieces are credible and which ones aren’t regarding the conflicting information.

    Maybe Capoozi can tell us which government version of the Osama assassination is the correct one. There have been so many, I’ve lost track. Or, perhaps on some metaphysical level all the stories are true because there is no such thing as truth.

    Perhaps Cass Sunstein and his team operate a phony Brian Holtz operation to churn out the reams of twisted nonsense that Holtz claims to produce. Maybe the Sunstein Team posts here and all over the internet using the Brian Holtz moniker to brand the bizarre circular logic and self-defeating political strategies promoted.

    Maybe Capoozi has entered a realm of distorted reality so freakish that he thinks lizard people are communicating to him telepathically.

    Who knows?

  194. Roger Roots

    Holz:
    I’m surprised you don’t list JFK as a case of a conspiracy that has been acknowledged and widely recognized. I’m sure you are aware of the U.S. House committee or subcommittee on assassinations in the late ’70s. The Committee issued a conclusion that the JFK hit was likely caused by at least 2 shooters, and thus a conspiracy.

  195. Tom Blanton

    Blanton apparently didn’t read my comment @198.

    I read it, but disregarded it as bullshit.

    I guess some of your best friends are Truthers, right?

  196. Jill Pyeatt

    TB @ 238: “Blanton apparently didn’t read my comment @198.

    I read it, but disregarded it as bullshit.”

    Brian thinks all he needs to do is say something, and we’ll all accept it as truth and change our ways. In reality, for me anyway, what Mr. Blanton says above is what happens.

    THAT is the real reason I don’t argue with Mr. Holtz. Until he gets off his arrogant high horse and offers genuine debate/conversation, I’m not interested in wasting my time.

  197. Tom Blanton

    The topic of this thread started as a modest proposal for ending the drug war.

    Of course, the jackass that wrote the article is wrong. It is actually a modest proposal to legalize small amounts of marijuana, regulate it and tax it.

    He claims, “Four steps is all it would take to end Delaware’s drug war,” but this asshole’s final step is regulating and taxing fucking joints.

    To actually end the drug war would require many more of these little baby steps, adding more drugs to be decriminalized, lessening penalties, etc. so that there could be a hundred or more steps.

    Equality Delaware has convinced him that the multi-step, coalition-building, steady progression strategy actually works faster. How so?

    What have they achieved? Have thousands of gay people been freed from prison who were serving sentences for being married without a license? Of course not, because there were no gays in prison who were married without a license. Now, a bill has been passed in the House of Delaware promising to give gay people a permission slip to marry from the government. Big fucking deal.

    Gay people can get married if they want to without government approval. They can write wills, hold property jointly with survivorship rights, have living wills, powers of attorney, medical directives, etc. – all without going to prison, just without a few government benefits and the highly prized government permission slip.

    What seems to elude The Delaware Libertarian is the fact that that the multi-step, coalition-building, steady progression strategy crap has been happening with NORML, MPP, et al for over 40 fucking years with literally hundreds of thousands of people actually going to jail, getting probation, and/or being fined during the interim.

    So when are the 4 simple steps that The Delaware Libertarian proposes going to be enacted? This year? Next Year? 20 years from now?

    Well, guess what? How much cash was the League of Idiot Christian Assholes Against Gay Marriage sending to the political hacks in Delaware and how effective were their lobbying efforts against gay marriage?

    Now, how much cash are the prison-industrial complex, the police organizations, the booze industry and big pharma folks spreading around among the pols and how effective are their lobbyists?

    Dope will be legal when dopers pay the politicians more than those who don’t want it legal pay. Baby stepping moderates or radicals in the streets screaming – it doesn’t matter. Money walks, political bullshit stands there accomplishing nothing.

    For those that cling to their cherished demockracy, embrace it, fork over the dough, then shut the fuck up.

  198. Tom Blanton

    Back to 9/11. What happened then?

    Patriot Act. Where was the LP? Harry Browne got it, so did lot of other libertarians. What was the LP doing?

    Ron Paul voted to go to war in Afghanistan. Lots of small “L” libertarians were against it – almost all of them. Where was the LP?

    The it was on to Iraq. Very few libertarians supported this madness. Where was the LP? Sucking Neal Boortz’s dick because he was the radio star silver bullet. Twats like Holtz were writing their little lists supporting more war.

    Just 7 short years after 9/11, the LP is nominating a guy for president who supported the wars, including the one on Americans for using certain drugs, and signed off on the Patriot Act.

    The VP nominee was busy worrying about Islamofascists and tax cuts while bankrolling fascists like Joe Lieberman just a few years after 9/11 and merely months before infiltrating the LP.

    Holtz is still worrying about 9/11 Truthers and other dickheads are worrying about taking a moderate stance on issues in order to attract mainstream rubes to join the LP.

    Meanwhile, martial law was declared in Boston just last week because a crazy teenager who may have blown up a pressure cooker is on the loose. Cops dressed as soldiers go door to door threatening people with actual assault weapons and searching homes without warrants. People applaud them, somehow thinking the government is protecting them.

    Where is the LP?

    Let’s just hope they’re trying to recruit some very moderate candidates that embrace a multi-step, coalition-building, steady progression strategy so that one day our great grandchildren will be free to do whatever the government allows them to do.

  199. Brian Holtz

    Jill, I guarantee you that I’ve spent more time reading Truther sites than you have spent reading Debunker sites and/or the official reports on 9/11. I’ve even posted analyses of how much the leading Truther and Debunker web sites link to each other. (You wouldn’t like the results.) Sorry, but your drive-by “no genuine interest in learning” calumny just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Now, how many times are you going to try to insult me on the way out of this discussion? You’ve announced that you’re quitting it, like, five times now.

    And if it’s “mocking” you to remind you that I’ve rebutted the separate challenges that you and your husband specifically aimed at me, well, it’s going to happen every time either of you comment to/about me in a 9/11 thread. Sorry.

    More hollow generalizations from Blanton @236. Contrary to his “broad brush” claim, I’m deliberately trying to focus my participation to three very specific incidents: Rod’s “all the rubble from 9/11 was quickly disposed of”, Alan Pyeatt’s “aluminum liquified on impact”, and Blanton’s insinuation about the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission. In each case, I demonstrated that their characterizations were misleading/inaccurate. If you don’t want to be categorized as a typical Truther, then don’t act like one by smuggling Truther disinformation into what you claim are “just questions”.

    Mr. Roots, you might want to Google “brian holtz” alt.conspiracy.jfk. As a former JFK conspiracy believer (I was young), I’ve invested much more time researching that case than I have 9/11. Before I link you to my recent writing on the HSCA’s report, I’m curious: are you really not aware of what subsequently happened to the evidential linchpin of the HSCA’s conspiracy conclusion?

    It’s been fun policing this thread while enjoying the weekend’s NBA playoffs, but the workweek beckons. I will try to restrict my further responses to 1) my 7 unanswered challenges to Truthers, and 2) the three incidents above that I claim are typical of the Truther M.O.

  200. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Tom Blanton @ 236:

    “Holtz paints with a broad brush anyone who questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as a lunatic ‘Truther'”

    It’s not nice to lie about people, Tom.

    Not even about Brian Holtz.

  201. Tom Blanton

    Thomas, it’s not a lie if I believe it.

    Anyway,

    9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html

    “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”

  202. From Der Sidelines

    Jill @234:

    “Stop looking like a jerk trying to bait me.”

    He can’t fix that which he looks like and is, except through plastic surgery and a brain implant…. 😛

  203. Tom Blanton

    Perhaps Holtz can get the information from Norad and the CIA that Kean and Hamilton were unable to obtain. Or perhaps he already knows what the information is.

    I have no idea and I offer no theory as to what it might be or even any motivations for the withholding of evidence.

    Therefore, I must be a conspiracy theorist according to the wise and magnificent Holtz? A dreaded Truther.

  204. Tom Blanton

    Brian Holtz // Apr 28, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Blanton @186 repeats another Truther factoid: I merely question the veracity of what has been asserted by the government, as do the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission.

    But there is nothing in what the Co-Chairs say that supports the standard inside-job controlled-demolition Truther account. Their “veracity” concerns are much more narrow than what Blanton cryptically and misleadingly suggests.

    Go fuck yourself, Holtz.

  205. Tom Blanton

    Knapp. it would certainly appear Holtz is painting me with a broad brush by suggesting that I infer there was an inside job-controlled demolition situation by what I wrote.

    He implies that anyone who thinks the government was not completely forthcoming believes it was an inside job – something I have never said.

  206. Brian Holtz

    Let’s see, who was the first person in this thread to point out deception by NORAD? That would be me, @221.

    I even explained why they did it.

    But Blanton has no theory about 9/11. No, he’s just a doe-eyed innocent who is shocked, shocked that a government official or agency would sculpt their 9/11 testimony to put themselves in (what they think is) the best possible light.

    So given the government deceptions and cover-ups I identified @221, it turns out I’m more of a 9/11 Truther than Blanton. If that’s the case, then I was wrong to put Blanton’s Co-Chair comment in the same category as Rod’s rubble comment and Alan’s aluminum comment.

  207. Alan Pyeatt

    ” First, he effectively admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas. It will never enjoy the sudden revelation/confirmation like the other 9 conspiracies I listed @121.”

    I said no such thing. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

    I objected to your attempt to use “journalists and historians” as a judge of your “10 questions” challenge. I DO think that the Court Intellectuals (I like Rothbard’s term) will resist the truth ever coming to light, and they have a lot of resources to assist them. But that doesn’t mean they will be successful forever.

    “Either Alan uncritically parroted Truther disinformation, or he lied. Period.” Uh, no Brian, I am able to think for myself and form my own opinions. Your bias doesn’t change that fact.

    “Alan, sir, you’ve just surrendered your credibility on this topic.”

    No Brian, you just showed us all that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “liquify.” It means that a material changes from a solid or gaseous state into a liquid state. Presumably, you agree that the aircraft (assuming that it WAS an aircraft) was in a solid state at the moment of impact. And according to the PM article, upon impact it changed into a state that was “closer to a liquid than a solid mass.” That is exactly what the word “liquify” means: a material changes from a solid (or gaseous) state into a liquid state. Solids don’t flow; fluids do. And the only two types of fluids in the universe are liquids and gases.

    The PM article tries to buffalo us with a bunch of sophisticated-sounding gobbledy-gook about an airplane that allegedly “disintegrated into a cloud of co-moving pieces.” I guess if they can’t dazzle us with brilliance, they will try to baffle us with bullshit. But they can’t hide the fact that there are only 3 states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Nor can they (or you) explain how a wingtip can travel one direction at a speed of at least 167 mph until impact, then make a 90 degree turn and travel 53′ to the edge of a hole, make yet another 90 degree turn, and go into the hole. Cloud of co-moving bullshit or no.

    That fairy tale almost makes the “magic bullet” theory seem reasonable by comparison. Almost.

    I don’t appreciate you trying to insinuate that I’m lying. I’m not the one trying to convince people of a conspiracy theory (i.e., a conspiracy perpetrated by 19 terrorists, aided by Muslims working out of some sort of high-tech cave) that involves an airplane magically flowing (which means that it would have to be in a fluid – that is, liquid or gaseous – state) into a 16′-18′ diameter hole. That story’s simply not credible, and you don’t have enough whitewash to cover it up.

    “Why is Alan so sure that this vast, byzantine 9/11 conspiracy will never crack open? Because it’s not proven, and probably never will be.”

    That’s not what I said, and once again, stop trying to put words in my mouth.

    All this from the same man who tried to convince us last year that 9/11 was NOT a “new Pearl Harbor,” despite the fact that it was directly responsible for launching two major wars. Wow.

  208. Alan Pyeatt

    People might be interested to know that over 2,000 professional architects and engineers have signed a petition requesting an actual, bona fide investigation into the events of 9/11. Although they tend to concentrate more on the inconsistencies surrounding the 3 building collapses at the World Trade Center, the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has gathered a LOT of good information on the subject, and much of it is geared towards lay people. Their website is located at http://www.ae911truth.org/.

    I don’t know if it’s still available, but their old website showed footage of the Twin Towers being built. This is very useful, because those buildings used an innovative structure to support the building, and it’s much easier to see what people are talking about if you see how the structure looked before the facades were built. The structures used a typical column/girder/beam frame for the core of the building, combined with exterior walls that were built with interlocking structural shapes. So, that might be helpful for anybody looking further into the collapse of the Twin Towers.

    Unfortunately, the blueprints of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings have been classified secret by the government. So much for transparency, much less forensic analysis!

  209. Rod Stern

    “Unfortunately, the blueprints of all 3 collapsed WTC buildings have been classified secret by the government. So much for transparency, much less forensic analysis!”

    See that’s the kind of thing that makes me go WTF. Why would the blueprints be classified? And before Brian chimes in: no, I haven’t gone out to verify that they are actually classified, I am assuming Alan knows what he is talking about, but I’m open to being corrected on that.

  210. Tom Blanton

    But Blanton has no theory about 9/11. No, he’s just a doe-eyed innocent who is shocked, shocked that a government official or agency would sculpt their 9/11 testimony to put themselves in (what they think is) the best possible light.

    No, Mr. Holtz (or whoever you are), I’m not shocked, shocked when government lackeys lie. It is their default position. I assume that I am hearing lies or distortions whenever I hear a pronouncement from political sources.

    It would appear that it is you that is shocked, shocked that your government would lie about 9/11 or reasons to invade Iraq while knowing that they lie about everything else.

    So, while I am to be your strawman 9/11 conspiracy theorist, I will once again throw you into the role of neocon shill for the warfare state – which actually happens to be fairly close to the truth.

    And once again Holtz, go fuck yourself and eat a shit sandwich. By the way, what have you learned from Popular Mechanics about the JFK conspiracy theory?

  211. Roger Roots

    Holz @ 242: “Before I link you to my recent writing on the HSCA’s report, I’m curious: are you really not aware of what subsequently happened to the evidential linchpin of the HSCA’s conspiracy conclusion?”

    I guess I’m not “aware.” Please enlighten me. And I have made no statement that the Committee’s conclusion was an “evidential linchpin.”

  212. Roger Roots

    Wait Holz: You’re not suggesting that the House Select Committee on Assassinations retracted its conclusion that JFK was killed by at least two shooters, and thus by a conspiracy. Rather, you seem to suggest that some “evidential linchpin” behind its conclusion has been undermined.
    First (1) I believe the Committee’s conclusion was based on much more than one piece of evidence, er . . . a “linchpin.”
    Second: What exactly are the standards for determining whether a conspiracy has become widely acknowledged? It sounds like your $1,000 “bet” is actually something of an attempt at fraud on your part, as you seem to discount proclamations that you yourself view as undermined by something (you don’t say what) that supposedly undermined an “evidential linchpin.” If GOVERNMENT acknowledgements of a conspiracy (issued by “bipartisan” bodies of both Republicans and Democrats) are insufficient, who then decides whether a conspiracy has been acknowledged?
    You?

  213. Brian Holtz

    I am assuming Alan knows what he is talking about

    Bad assumption, again. His factoid is both misleading and stale.

    Why would the blueprints be classified?

    They weren’t. You just uncritically regurgitated yet another misleading Truther factoid.

    The Port Authority doesn’t have the authority to “classify” their proprietary blueprints. They did, however, have the legal authority to dickishly CYA by making the American Society of Civil Engineers researchers sign a waiver that they would not use the blueprints in a lawsuit against the Port Authority.

    The blueprints were leaked in 2007 and are on the Internet.

    It took me ten minutes to research this.

    Andy: see why I’m not interested in a live “debate” in which I just transcribe factoids for later offline debunking?

    Rod: when will you stop regurgitating Truther factoids as presumptively true?

    Alan: did you know the backstory above and intentionally mislead readers here, or were you just sloppy and didn’t bother to investigate the Truther factoid you parroted?

  214. Brian Holtz

    Roots: Please enlighten me.

    Sorry, this is Remedial 9/11. Remedial JFK was last semester. 🙂 Seriously, at least read the Wikipedia article on HSCA before asking me how its conclusions are currently viewed.

    What exactly are the standards for determining whether a conspiracy has become widely acknowledged?

    I didn’t say “become widely acknowledged”, I said “joined the standard lists of history’s authentic conspiracies”. Do you not know whether (and why) “lamestream” journalists and historians currently credit the late-1970’s conclusions of the HSCA?

  215. Thomas L. Knapp

    RS @ 254,

    “I am assuming Alan knows what he is talking about, but I’m open to being corrected on that.”

    Well, he certainly knows how to continue arguing a point long after it’s been conclusively demonstrated that he’s wrong.

    I thought I’d seen the dumbest “inside job” arguments many times over vis a vis WTC 7, but his inability to understand — or his willingness to lie about — the “liquid” analogy really takes the fucking cake.

  216. George Phillies

    @259 Brian,

    To reinforce your point, that Okhrana forgery, “The Chronicles of the Elders of Zion”, has become widely acknowledged — as a piece of antisemitic rose fertilizer. Widely acknowledged is in no sense evidence of truth.

  217. Smart Alex

    Tlk @ 260: No, the wingspan thing has NOT been debunked. If you’re talking about Brian’s words @ 122, no, sorry, that explanation doesn’t make sense just because Holtz said it. WE’ll never get anywhere if you believe implausible explanations like that. When did you guys get your engineering degrees?

  218. Brian Holtz

    AP@252: the Court Intellectuals will resist the truth ever coming to light, and they have a lot of resources to assist them. But that doesn’t mean they will be successful forever.

    You say you already have “over 2,000 professional architects and engineers” on your side. If your case is so strong, then surely the technical community as a whole will see the light one day, right? Don’t you want to cash in when they do? I’m offering you at least a 10-1 return on your investment. Why not bet on the expertise of all those “professional architects and engineers”? If I’m foolish enough to bet against them, why not take my money?

    you don’t understand the meaning of the word “liquify.”

    Face-palm. The word “liquify” isn’t even in the PM article. The article does not say that aliminum turned into liquid. Instead, it made an analogy to a “liquid” to explain how the disintegrating airplane interacted with the obstacles in its path.

    The PM article tries to buffalo us with a bunch of sophisticated-sounding gobbledy-gook about an airplane that allegedly “disintegrated into a cloud of co-moving pieces.”

    OK, perhaps you are just reading-impaired. The words you quote are from me, not from the PM article.

    I don’t appreciate you trying to insinuate that I’m lying.

    Do you not know what the word “or” means? I wrote: “Either Alan uncritically parroted Truther disinformation, or he lied.” My best guess is that you uncritically parroted a Truther factoid that you’d never checked. When I called you on it, you decided to dig in your heels and hand-wave about states of matter, rather than admit that PM simply made an analogy to “liquid”.

    There’s not much shame in not having critically researched every Truther factoid you’ve encountered. The shame is 1) uncritically using this one as your lead-off go-to factoid as you brushed aside all my challenges, and then 2) digging in your heels and denying that you’re now misreading the PM “liquid” analogy.

    the same man who tried to convince us last year that 9/11 was NOT a “new Pearl Harbor,” despite the fact that it was directly responsible for launching two major wars

    Oh, you do not want to go there. In the next comment I will repost how I slam-dunked your “Pearl Harbor” meme on 2011-09-11.

  219. Brian Holtz

    [My comments in 2001 about the PNAC white paper that said “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”]

    I doubt most Truthers have even read the PNAC report. It was about ballistic missiles, not box cutters. It did not say a new Pearl Harbor is in any way desired. The PNAC report is about military force restructuring, and said “the prime directive for transformation will be to design and deploy a global missile defense system”. It mentioned China more often than it mentioned Iraq. It mentioned ballistic missiles 30 times, and mentioned terrorism only twice. Truthers never both to quote its other mention of Pearl Harbor: “Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.”

    If 9/11 was designed to advance the policy agenda of the PNAC report, then 9/11 was clearly a monumental failure.

    The PNAC report called for:

    • maintenance of U.S. strategic nuclear superiority
    • homeland security via ballistic missile defenses
    • “shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia”
    • “a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control”

    9/11 did not advance any of the above policy agenda items, and in fact distracted from each of them.

    The only context of “homeland” defense in the PNAC report is ballistic missile defense. None of PNAC’s mentions of “homeland defense” are in the context of terrorism.

    When Truthers trumpet the PNAC report’s call for “homeland defense” without telling readers the actual context, it lets us know what they mean by “truth”.

  220. Brian Holtz

    “Smart” Alex @263 blatantly misreads Knapp @260. Knapp was indelicately pointing out how badly Alan Pyeatt is misrepresenting the “liquid” analogy. Knapp was talking about Pyeatt’s reading skills, not about holes in the Pentagon.

    We can move on to discussing Pentagon damage once Alan gives up on misrepresenting the PM description of it.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  221. Roger Roots

    Phillies @ 262: “The House ‘two assassin’ model was totally demolished by National Review.” So the National Review is the new rubric for determining the truth? I thought you hated Republican decrees? A House committee which reviewed hundreds of pieces of evidence and hired numerous researchers came to the wrong conclusion, but the Republican hacks at National Review came to the correct conclusion?

  222. Thomas L. Knapp

    SA @ 263,

    “Tlk @ 260: No, the wingspan thing has NOT been debunked. ”

    I didn’t say it had been debunked.

    I said that Alan Pyeatt either doesn’t understand the “liquid” analogy used in Popular Mechanics’ attempt to debunk it, or else is lying about that analogy.

    There’s a difference.

  223. Roger Roots

    Both Holtz and Phillies are surely aware that the National Review has been frequently accused of being a CIA-launched and operated magazine. Even some of National Review’s own writers have said this: http://wconger.blogspot.com/2007/09/national-review-cia-front.html . In any case, the National Review is known to be highly supportive of the milita ry-industrial complex, a recurring cheerleader for war, national security and secretive imperial government.

    Holtz, I just read your referenced wikipedia paragraph and it hardly demolishes or destroys all the work of the numerous researchers who assisted the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

  224. Brian Holtz

    OK, so even though the National Academy of Science’s National Research Council published an article in Science debunking the HSCA acoustic evidence, you’re still confused as to why mainstream journalists and historians don’t list the JFK assassination alongside the other confirmed conspiracies of the 20th century?

    Well, then, I just can’t help you.

  225. Roger Roots

    Holtz: I don’t know what you mean by “mainstream journalists and historians” not listing the JFK assassination as a confirmed conspiracy. There have been multiple bestsellers on the topic of the JFK assassination. BY FAR, the biggest sellers–some selling MILLIONS of copies –have concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy that included at least 2 shooters. BY FAR. While there have been a small handful of JFK assassination books positing an Oswald-as-lone-gunman view that have made the bestseller list (the Warren Report itself was such a bestseller), THE VAST MAJORITY of books sold on the topic have debunked the lone-gunman theory. So I don’t know what you mean by “mainstream.”

  226. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 258: “The blueprints were leaked in 2007 and are on the Internet….

    “Alan: did you know the backstory above and intentionally mislead readers here, or were you just sloppy and didn’t bother to investigate the Truther factoid you parroted?”

    Brian, please note the following: “(AE’s) Editors note: In order to learn more about what caused the explosive demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7, researcher Aidan Monaghan submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the NYC Department of Buildings (DoB) about construction projects performed in the decade prior to 9/11. The response by the DoB reveals that the documentation for these buildings contains information that could be considered dangerous. Architects and engineers want to know what would be so dangerous about releasing the important technical records that could save lives in possible future building failures.

    “Within a September 13, 2011 FOI response from the New City Department of Buildings (DoB), it is noted that World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 have been deemed sensitive buildings and thus, plans for these buildings have been exempted from disclosure by statute because ‘if disclosed, the documents requested would endanger the life or safety of any person.’” (http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2011/11/foi-response-release-of-wtc-blueprints-would-endanger-the-life-or-safety-of-any-person-1367604.html and http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/576-foi-response-release-of-wtc-blueprints-would-endanger-the-life-or-safety-of-any-person-.html)

    Your own post states that, “The blueprints were leaked in 2007 and are on the Internet.” So, by your own admission, they WERE being kept secret until then. Also, the prints that were leaked were for the North Tower only (http://publicintelligence.net/world-trade-center-north-tower-blueprints/). Without looking at the “as-builts” we don’t know if the two towers were identical or not.
    The prints to Building 7 were not released until last year – more than 10 years after the attack (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html).

  227. Brian Holtz

    By “mainstream”, I mean: is the JFK assassination conspiracy treated as fact in top-tier newspapers and top-tier history journals and in history textbooks at top-tier universities?

    COINTELPRO etc is. JFK assassination conspiracy most decidely is not.

    Is this news to you?

  228. Jill Pyeatt

    I didn’t think I knew ANYONE who believed the official JFK lone bullet fairy tale.

    I guess I was wrong. Wow.

  229. Alan Pyeatt

    “Oh, you do not want to go there. In the next comment I will repost how I slam-dunked your “Pearl Harbor” meme on 2011-09-11.”

    You didn’t “slam-dunk” anything. All you do is contest a lot of details without proving anything. The 9/11 attacks directly initiated two wars and subsequent occupations. That’s EXACTLY what the Pearl Harbor analogy means: a traumatic event that provides an excuse to go to war.

    And yet, you continue to argue against this obvious similarity.

  230. Alan Pyeatt

    For anyone who is not familiar with the Project For the New American Century’s report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” it available here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. There are several summaries available on the internet, including this one: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html.

    As the Antiwar.com summary states, “Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the world’s preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of ‘multiple simultaneous large-scale wars’ and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a toehold in the oil-rich Middle East.”

    I think most level-headed people would consider that a far stronger motive for an attack than the Bush administration’s line that “they hate us for our freedoms.” $5 TRILLION could provide quite a motivation. And before Mr. Holtz can obfuscate the issue, let me point out that while these are costs to the American public, they are also revenues to specific companies, individuals, and organizations.

  231. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m sure Brian thinks he’s won every argument he’s ever had, which, of course, has only happened in his own mind. I also don’t know why he can’t disagree without accusing someone of deliberately lying. It hasn’t occured to him, apparently, that someone else has looked at the same information and simply reached a different conclusion. Yet, Mr. Holtz feels compelled to hurl insults instead of considering that possiblity.

  232. Brian Holtz

    Alan, the FOI request you linked to did not deny any of the requested documents because of this supposed 87(2)(f) “public safety” classification. Do you have an instance of that rule being used to deny a FOI request for WTC blueprints? If not, then you conflated classified-for-conspiracy-purposes with proprietary-for-lawsuit-purposes.

    So, by your own admission, they WERE being kept secret until then.

    What I admitted is that the blueprints were proprietary, and that the Port Authority’s CYA fears explain the waiver that they required the ASCE researchers to sign. Surely you are aware of the billions of dollars in lawsuits that have ensnarled this incident.

    I guess we are to imagine that the success of the conspiracy hinged on keeping the WTC blueprints proprietary for five years, except for all the ASCE and NIST researchers who used them for their studies. And then when the blueprints leaked in 2007, the conspiracy cracked wide open. It was in all the papers.

    For these keeping score, these are Alan’s go-to factoids:

    1) Popular Mechanics used the word “liquid” in an analogy.

    2) The Port Authority was worried about lawsuits and so made researchers sign waivers when sharing WTC blueprints that have now been public for 5 years.

    P.S. (1) suggests that Alan turns out to be a missile-hit-the-Pentagon Truther. Why else would he care about the holes in the Pentagon?

  233. Alan Pyeatt

    Whoops, I forgot to include the link to the cost estimate: http://nation.time.com/2011/06/29/the-5-trillion-war-on-terror/. Please note that this is a significant increase from previous estimates of $3 Trillion by private economists and a mere $50-60 Billion by the Bush administration.

    Also, note that this is an example of how the truth can come out after the Court Intellectuals have successfully covered it up for several years. When the $3 Trillion estimate by Stiglitz and Bilmes was published, Brian’s mainstream “journalists and historians” poo-pooed it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/06/16/is-it-really-3-trillion-war/. But now, there’s simply too much evidence to deny.

    That’s why, contrary to Brian’s claim, I did NOT say that the truth about 9/11 would never come to light.

  234. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian, what part of “Recent efforts have also led to the acquisition of revealing video recordings of the WTC catastrophe, and forced the NYC Department of Buildings to claim that the release of WTC renovation plans for the years leading up to 9/11 would ‘endanger the life or safety of any person’ do you not understand?

    I provided two links that reference this quote.

  235. Brian Holtz

    AP: That’s EXACTLY what the Pearl Harbor analogy means: a traumatic event that provides an excuse to go to war.

    A Google search for PNAC “wanted a new pearl harbor” yields 66,000 results. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the widespread Truther accusation that the PNAC white paper is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Nobody is disputing that 9/11 led to a couple wars. That causal connection is not evidence of insiderism.

    Your antiwar.com “summary” @277 is pre-demolished by my quotes from the white paper @265. You clearly have not read the PNAC white paper. It was not about terrorism or Iraq or the middle east. It was about strategic missile/space/naval threats from Asian land powers.

    I love it that you are willing to mislead people about a white paper that’s available for anybody to read. It makes my task here so much easier.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  236. Brian Holtz

    Alan @280, you need to stop reading Truther secondary sources, and start reading primary sources. Read the Sep 13 2001 DoB letter. It does not withold any requested documents for security grounds. Do you dare dispute this?

  237. Jill Pyeatt

    I wonder if eyewitness accounts mean anything to Mr. Holtz? I’d recommend reading what April Gallop has to say. I wish I had a recording of what Paul Cross said about viewing the Pentagon “carnage” right after it happened. Paul Cross was an actor in Art Olivier’s film “Operation Terror”. He described to us how shocking it was to him, a devoted Republican, to visit the site that afternoon and saw there was little to no debris at all. I guess all the airplane parts, lugage and passengers had co-moved away.

  238. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian: I believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not a jet. Go ahead, make fun of me and tell me my reading comprehension sucks. But, what about this: my vote is equal to yours in this country. Nothing you can say will change that.

  239. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian: Why on earth should we read “primary sources” when they’re usually funded by our government? Do you not understand that we don’t believe those sources?

  240. Thomas L. Knapp

    JP @ 285,

    “I believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not a jet.”

    For more than a decade, I’ve found that explanation plausible, based in part on the fact that the hole it made looks a lot like the hole a US missile or smart bomb makes in reinforced concrete (I’ve seen such holes close up and not long after they were made, at al Jabr air base in Kuwait in 1991).

    Oddly enough, I never bothered to read the Popular Mechanics piece on the Pentagon until this thread. So thanks to Alan for the antics that pointed me at another plausible hypothesis.

  241. Brian Holtz

    JP: I didn’t think I knew ANYONE who believed the official JFK lone bullet fairy tale. I guess I was wrong.

    If you have never met/debated anyone who disagrees with you on the core evidentiary claim of the most infamous conspiracy claim ever, that puts a whole new light on your calumny that I have “no genuine interest in learning”. It’s becoming pretty clear that you define “learning” as “agreeing with Jill”.

    Why on earth should we read “primary sources”

    So you can not misrepresent them.

    This admission about reading habits in the Pyeatt household explains a lot.

  242. Alan Pyeatt

    Here’s a link to the PM article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane.

    Take a look at the upper photograph. WHERE IS THE AIRPLANE?

    Even if the wings HAD magically crammed themselves – or flowed – into the hole, the collapse of the Pentagon above the hole clearly shows that there is no mass of aluminum and magnesium alloys anywhere, either slammed against the Pentagon walls or inside the building. So, what happened? Did it vanish into thin air?

    Where are all the dead bodies? Where is all the luggage?

    Do a Google search and see if you can find ANY photo that shows a Boeing 757, passengers, crew, or luggage.

    That story simply isn’t credible. And faux libertarians pushing that lie is what “really takes the fucking cake.”

  243. Alan Pyeatt

    “So thanks to Alan for the antics that pointed me at another plausible hypothesis.”

    If pointing out obvious inconsistencies in the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory constitutes “antics,” then I’m glad to have amused you.

  244. Brian Holtz

    JP: I’m sure Brian thinks he’s won every argument he’s ever had

    Heh. I guess you missed me writing “I was wrong” on this very thread.

    Nevertheless, I remain fascinated by this style of insult — and that’s what it is, Jill — in which my opponents engage in mind-reading about my self-perceptions.

    he can’t disagree without accusing someone of deliberately lying

    False. I gave Alan the benefit of the doubt, and suggested that he just uncritically regurgitated a Truther “liquid” factoid without checking the primary source. But when he dug in his heels and repeated his misrepresentation even after quoting the text, I found it hard to disagree with Knapp’s conclusion @260.

  245. Alan Pyeatt

    BTW, Brian is the one who mentioned a missile, not me. Although the size and shape of the hole DO suggest that as one possibility, there may be other possible explanations. But a Boeing 757 that magically “flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass” – especially when that material would have to change direction 90 degrees, travel up to 53′, and then make yet another 90 degree turn – simply isn’t one of them.

  246. Alan Pyeatt

    “I remain fascinated by this style of insult”

    Yeah, nothing insulting in YOUR posts!

    “I gave Alan the benefit of the doubt, and suggested that he just uncritically regurgitated a Truther “liquid” factoid without checking the primary source.” Gee, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt when the PM article clearly describes the process of a material liquifying, and then you and TLK want to have it both ways by describing that as an “analogy.” Matter is either in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state. To flow into a hole, they must be fluid – i.e., either liquid or gas.

    But the bottom line is that there is clearly NO Boeing 757, passengers, crew, or luggage in ANY of the photographs, and eyewitnesses have confirmed the same thing.

    The bigger question is WHY you would want us to believe this fairy tale.

  247. Brian Holtz

    JP: I wonder if eyewitness accounts mean anything to Mr. Holtz? I’d recommend reading…

    Sorry, but my Jill Pyeatt Reading Recommendations list is still stuck on your request that I explain to you how I reconcile 1) media reports in 2001 of rumors of Osama’s death with 2) media reports in 2011 of Osama’s assassination. It seemed you were going to claim that this tension demonstrates that there’s no such thing as a mainstream/lamestream journalistic consensus. So I’m still waiting for you to cite the most confusing/confounding 2001 Osama death report that you can find.

  248. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 177: “Ah, Osama’s burial location — the linchpin to 9/11 Truth.”

    Why do you make ridiculous statements like that? RS didn’t write that, and here’s another example of you putting words into someone’s mouth that they didn’t say.

  249. Smart Alex

    I’ve never seem anyone argue as impossibly as Mr. Holtz. He pulls a few words out of someone’s comments, twists those words until he can find some way to confuse and belittle what the commenter said, then pretends he’s the victim. Conversely, when someone points out something Brian said that’s debatable, he pretends he said no such thing. I can’t imagine a scenario where he doesn’t pretend to have the last word, so why is anyone bothering?

  250. Brian Holtz

    JP: I believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not a jet. Go ahead, make fun of me

    I make fun of you? Please copy and paste the most egregious example of me making fun of you, say, in this thread. Then compare and contrast it to you above saying to me “Cutting my toenails is a far better use of my time”.

    You can be uncivil to me, or you can make unsubstantiated charges that I’m uncivil to you, but it’s just hypocritical to do both.

    But, what about this: my vote is equal to yours in this country. Nothing you can say will change that.

    I know a honeypot when I see one. Nice try, though.

  251. Brian Holtz

    Alan @296: I plead guilty to the use of sarcasm to point out that the manner of Osama’s burial has essentially nothing to do with the Truth of 9/11.

    Good thing nobody here ever uses sarcasm to misrepresent my positions.

  252. Nicholas Sarwark

    I know a honeypot when I see one. Nice try, though.

    You may know one, but the number of comments on this thread don’t indicate that you know how to stay out of one.

  253. Brian Holtz

    AP: the PM article clearly describes the process of a material liquifying

    Wow.

    I’m not going to debate what any competent reader of English can see in a text. Mr. Pyeatt doesn’t read the same language as I do, and so we have no basis for communication.

    If anybody with a real name (and that doesn’t have the same last name as Alan) agrees with his reading, please speak up, or else I rest my case regarding Alan’s credibility.

  254. Brian Holtz

    @300 Touché! But when such an esteemed lurker decloaks, it doesn’t help me extricate myself from the larger honeypot you’ve identified. 😉

  255. Jill Pyeatt

    The point is that I haven’t wanted to be part of this conversation. I finally weighed in with that comment about toenails on Friday because you kept bringing up my name and baiting me to join the conversation. Then, I commented a few times Friday and Saturday, then disappeared for hours, during which time you mocked me and continued your arrogant I’m-so-much-smarter- than-you’ll-ever-be tone. Maybe you don’t realize how you come across, Brian, but don’t pretend you haven’t been insulting. Honestly, I’d rather discuss foreign policy with Wayne Allyn Root for hours, than spend 5 minutes discussing things with you.

    Okay, the toenails comment was rude, and I’ll try not to say it again. What I’d really prefer is not to discuss anything with you ever.

  256. Smart Alex

    I haven’t read this entire thread, but from what I’ve read, Holtz had been Insult King. Jill’s comments have more likes self-defense. Where’s the popcorn?

  257. Brian Holtz

    JP: I target my civility level with each person at about two clicks higher than that person’s civility level toward me.

    Think about that. Think hard.

    And if you can quote an instance where I mis-calibrated with you, I’m ready to discuss it.

    I’ve begged you to substantiate such charges before, and you never do. You just keep repeating them.

    That’s just not fair.

  258. Brian Holtz

    I haven’t read this entire thread, but from what I’ve read, Holtz had been Insult King

    I’ve never stooped to the level of Jill’s toenail remark, or Alan’s “faux libertarians” calumny, or any of the peurile name-calling from Andy or Blanton or FDS. (Where is the Pyeatt Civility Police when you need them?)

    Rod Stern practices civility so well that he makes it darn hard to top him in civility. Ask him if he has any complaints.

  259. Brian Holtz

    I said two specific behaviors were “hypocritical” when done by the same person. I’d dare you to dispute my accusation, but Jill already apologized for one of the behaviors in question. (Thank you, Jill. I’ll buy the first round.)

    So yes: to a real libertarian, being called a “faux libertarian” is far more insulting than charging that two of one’s actions are inconsistent — especially when the charge is effectively conceded.

  260. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian, you seem to get so caught up in minutiae that you lose track of the meaning of things.

    But if you think about it for a while, you might realize that a faux libertarian IS a hypocrite. So, maybe your “poor me” attitude has more to do with the fact that this time it’s YOU who is the object of the term.

  261. Brian Holtz

    OK, this has descended far enough into farce (perhaps because asymmetric amounts of reputational capital have been placed on the table). Let me try yet again to bring market forces to bear.

    Andy, I make you this debate counter-challenge: we do an LP fundraiser by letting people vote with their dollars on the questions they want Debunkers or Truthers to answer.

    Anybody can submit questions, targeted at one side or the other. Before a deadline one month before the debate, individual questions must attract $10 in donations to be eligible for the debate. All questions and running donation totals are public. Donations toward questions are not refundable.

    To get addressed in the debate, a pre-submitted question must by debate time have attracted at least $25 in donations (including the initial $10). During the debate, questions are addressed in descending order of the total donation, regardless of which side they are addressed to. (The same question to both sides counts as separate questions, requiring separate donations.) Each question gets answered for no less than 2 minutes, and no more than 5 minutes. No rebuttal from the other side, unless rebuttal time for the question separately attracts at least $25 in donations. If time runs out, donations toward unanswered questions are not refundable.

    Questions may be asked live for a donation of $50, and are inserted into the question queue in order of donation amount. The questioner gets 30 seconds to ask, and the respondent gets 5 minutes to answer. Rebuttal can be financed by a separate $50 donation. Respondents are allowed to consult the Internet live to help answer the question.

    The LP does not have to pay for the debate facilities or donation administration. The event must be pure profit for the LP.

    This design makes questioners think carefully about their questions, lets respondents marshal their best answers, and lets the LP measure (and profit from) the market for 9/11 “Truth”.

    If somebody sets this up, I’ll suit up for Team Debunker, and finance some tough questions for Team Truther.

    Game on.

  262. Alan Pyeatt

    And once again, WHERE IS THE PLANE? Boy, these terrorists must be the best magicians in the world.

  263. Brian Holtz

    WHERE IS THE PLANE?

    For $25, you can have the best Debunker answer to that question that Google can find.

    Which makes me wonder: have you bothered to look up the best Debunker answer to that question that Google can find? Or do you just ask it because the Trutherweb asks it?

  264. Alan Pyeatt

    I was typing my question as you were posting @ 313, Brian. And I ask the because none of the photos of the site show anything that looks anything like a plane was ever anywhere on the site.

    I’m always down for raising funds for the LP. But I wouldn’t play your “10 Questions” game, and I’m not playing this one either. It can clearly be rigged by the side with the most money, and I’m not debating on your terms.

    And no, that’s not evidence in your favor.

  265. Brian Holtz

    you seem to get so caught up in minutiae that you lose track of the meaning of things

    The meanings are clear.

    “faux libertarian” means someone who fakes their entire ethical/political worldview.

    “hypocritical” when applied to two specific actions means that those two particular actions are ethically inconsistent.

    Readers can decide for themselves if the two accusations are equally uncivil.

  266. Gene Trosper

    The proper Libertraian response to so-called “conspiracy theories” is quite simple: since these conspiracies are rooted in government, the proper course to take is to slash government size, scope, and power. The larger and more powerful a government becomes, the more likely such conspiracy scenarios could come to fruition.

  267. Gene Trosper

    ^^^ I’m not sure if it’s a proper “Libertraian” approach, but it’s certainly the proper Libertarian approach.

    I need to proofread before hitting the submit button!

  268. Alan Pyeatt

    Good point, Gene. Thanks for bringing this discussion back to our common goals.

  269. Brian Holtz

    +1 to Gene @319

    We should also contrast government responders on 9/11 with self-organized civilian responders. Am I remembering some libertarian organization already wrote about this, or was I just wishing they would?

  270. David Colborne

    Pfft. Everybody knows that 9/11 caused autism. Do the math – ever since 9/11, autism rates have steadily increased. It’s a conspiracy by the government to convince people that they should avoid vaccines so they’ll be more vulnerable to biological weapons when they need to put the insurrection down.

  271. Eric Sundwall

    ” Then there are the people who think that the United Nations is threatens American liberties.”

    I stopped after the next sentence mentioning an editor, because this sentence needs one so much.

    Top it off with 300+ remarks and its back to following baseball.

  272. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    JP @ 285,

    “I believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, not a jet.”

    For more than a decade, I’ve found that explanation plausible, based in part on the fact that the hole it made looks a lot like the hole a US missile or smart bomb makes in reinforced concrete (I’ve seen such holes close up and not long after they were made, at al Jabr air base in Kuwait in 1991).

    Oddly enough, I never bothered to read the Popular Mechanics piece on the Pentagon until this thread. So thanks to Alan for the antics that pointed me at another plausible hypothesis.”

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125×109432

    So who is Benjamin Chertoff ?

    Debunking Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Lies

    http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6

    Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics

    Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

    It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles’ acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn’t bucked that tradition.

    The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and ‘anti-terror’ operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

    Popular Mechanics’ March 2005 front cover story was entitled ‘Debunking 9/11 Lies’ and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

    Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

    This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government’s explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

    This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    AP @ 316,

    “none of the photos of the site show anything that looks anything like a plane was ever anywhere on the site.”

    Hmm. That’s a novel claim, one that I haven’t heard before.

    Most Pentagon Truthers I run into point to the famous photo of an aircraft engine part on the Pentagon lawn to question what kind of aircraft it came from, and for some reason (I guess maybe it’s the old “too convenient” ploy) to the photo of the small piece of fuselage skin, clearly in American Airlines colors, both of which can be found in about five seconds on Google.

    So are you claiming those photos were faked, or are you claiming you’ve just never seen them?

  274. Alan Pyeatt

    TLK, 1 shred of sheet metal and 1 engine part do not amount to an aircraft. Look at the photos and show us one that looks like an airplane.

    I mean, seriously, this is what you’re down to arguing? Look at the photos and provide us a link to one that shows enough metal to be a Cessna 175, much less a Boeing 757. Inside or outside of the hole, I don’t care. Because I have yet to see that photo.

    Again, where are all the bodies? Where is all the luggage? Of course I’m aware of the engine part (which some people claim isn’t even from a Boeing 757) and the piece of sheet metal. But that’s not a credible claim for an entire aircraft.

    Meanwhile, the photos of the site (both before and after the top of the hole collapsed show nothing that looks like an airplane was ever there.

  275. George Phillies

    After it flies into the ground, it does not look much like an airplane. Most of the pieces would have gone inside. In particular, the engines are the only parts that are even vaguely effective as penetrators, based on the nuclear reactor containment vessel test that involved a high speed ramming attack with a remote controlled jet airliner.

  276. Alan Pyeatt

    Andy @ 325: “It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles’ acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn’t bucked that tradition.”

    Come on, Andy, if the Hearst Corporation were willing to use their media influence to change public opinion in order to increase their own revenues, why wouldn’t they have printed a lot of propaganda in the early 20th century to help make marijauna illegal and increase the income from Hearst’s timber holdings? After all, if marijuana wasn’t available to be made into paper, maybe the mills would have to use timber.

    Oh, wait…

  277. Alan Pyeatt

    GP @ 328: “After it flies into the ground, it does not look much like an airplane.”

    Good. Somebody finally brought up the claim that the airplane hit the ground first. Which begs the question, why didn’t pieces of the airplane litter the Pentagon lawn? One small piece of sheet metal does not explain it. Google “airplane crash” images and see what they look like. Note that in almost every case, the tail section is intact (due to a stronger structural shape). Not so at the Pentagon (or near Shanksville, PA for that matter).

    “In particular, the engines are the only parts that are even vaguely effective as penetrators.”

    Which explains why if a Boeing 757 had really hit the Pentagon, it would have smashed up along the outer wall.

    Thank you, Dr. Phillies.

  278. Alan Pyeatt

    BTW Dr. Phillies, did you write the title of this thread? I’m just wondering if you plan to initiate a purge.

  279. Thomas L. Knapp

    AP @ 327,

    Your claim was not that there was “nothing that looked like an airplane.”

    Your claim was that there wasn’t “anything that looks anything like a plane was ever anywhere on the site.”

    Every time you change your claims after they’re disproven, expect it to be pointed out.

  280. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 325,

    Nice try. The equivalent of Hitler insisting that the General Theory of Relativity couldn’t possibly be correct because, after all, the guy who wrote it up was a Jew.

  281. Tom Blanton

    I’m sure Brian thinks he’s won every argument he’s ever had, which, of course, has only happened in his own mind.

    FACT: At one point, Holtz kept a summary and log of his “debates” with others detailing his wins. It was written almost as a diary and would appear to be of interest to nobody but himself. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if this log remains online and he continues to update it.

    I wouldn’t classify Holtz as stupid, but he is certainly “too clever by half” and is severely emotionally disturbed in my opinion. As dysfunctional as I freely admit to being, this guy makes me look normal. It is amazing that anyone takes him very seriously as his weirdness is so transparent. He takes himself so seriously that I don’t have to.

  282. Brian Holtz

    At one point, Holtz kept a summary and log of his “debates” with others detailing his wins.

    No, it’s just a place to cross-post all the comments I leave on sites that aren’t mine, so I can preserve/search them independent of those sites. Got the idea from anarcholibertarian Charles Johnson. Too lazy to do it consistently. Fascinating that you call a log of all my comments a log “detailing his wins”. Thanks for the compliment, but winning in Internet debates is rare. The best one can hope for is to not lose — i.e. to rebut any and all serious arguments offered against one’s statements. And the key to not losing is not being smart or a good debater. The key is being a smart shopper in the marketplace of ideas, and only making statements you know you can defend. And the key to that is understanding the counter-arguments to your position better than your opponents do.

    It was written almost as a diary

    Nope, just cross-posting. (A “diary” would be that fuzzy pink book under your pillow.)

    and would appear to be of interest to nobody but himself.

    Mostly true, with a notable exception that Blanton went apoplectic when he found his name on that blog through a web search.

    Cue Blanton visit to that blog in 3, 2, 1 …

  283. Tom Blanton

    Totally bizarre:

    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/tom-blanton-discovers-that-i-archive.html

    Holtz, you remain on my shit list, but I must admit I find it amusing that you are so clueless that you readily display your weirdness to the world as if it is perfectly normal.

    It is also amusing how you seem to be incapable of telling the truth. You claim it is a cross-post, but it is obviously a summary that you have written – even if it is a cross-post that you wrote as a summary knowing you would later preserve it in your virtual fuzzy pink book.

    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/blanton-runs-but-cannot-hide.html

    Thanks for the memories and thanks for the chuckles. Don’t ever change, Brian.

  284. Tom Blanton

    Totally bizarre:

    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/tom-blanton-discovers-that-i-archive.html

    Holtz, you remain on my shit list, but I must admit I find it amusing that you are so clueless that you readily display your weirdness to the world as if it is perfectly normal.

    It is also amusing how you seem to be incapable of telling the truth. You claim it is a cross-post, but it is obviously a summary that you have written – even if it is a cross-post that you wrote as a summary knowing you would later preserve it in your virtual fuzzy pink book.

  285. Tom Blanton

    Perhaps other folks that post on IPR would appreciate links to the summaries you’ve written about your “debates” with them, Brian.

  286. Brian Holtz

    They’re not “summaries”. I don’t waste time “summarizing” for an archive the comments I posted elsewhere. I just copy and paste those comments verbatim, and when those comments came in bursts, I don’t bother pasting them as separate entries on that blog.

    Blanton thinks that makes the archive a “diary”.

    Dear Diary,

    Tom Blanton visited you again today! And this time, he didn’t say that you being an archive of my web comments constitutes “slander” against him. But luckily, we “remain on [his] shit list”, so we must still be doing something right…

  287. Steve M

    I was just wondering what was the mass of the twin towers in respect to the mass of the two airplanes and found this….

    http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

    so at 1.5 million tons of World Trade Center to 2 Boeing 767 at a combined weight of under 400,000 lbs

    The ratio of air planes to world trade center is 0.000133 lbs of airplane to lb of world trade center.

    To find 1 lb of air plane you would have to sift through 7,500 lbs of rubble.

    Its not parts per billion but since the World Trade Center can house 50,000 workers each presumably with a desk with an aluminum frame… so 100 lb of aluminum per desk or 5,000,000 lbs of aluminum … So just from the desks of the workers you have 10 times more aluminum then from the airplanes.

    So if you have a problem finding the airplanes after the event i am not surprised….

    I have one more thought…. A kid I used to baby sit works on Wall Street and he saw at least one of the planes hit one of the twin towers and saw people jumping from the Twin towers rather then burn.

    Please explain how all the eye witnesses were duped?

  288. Seebeck

    While all of this is only mildly entertaining and accomplishes nothing useful except making people look bad, I should point one small fact out about jet crashes: Not all of them produce bodies and debris.

    Case in point: United 585 crashed into Widefield Park (CO) in 1991, while I was in high school. Top story on the local news. The B737 flipped over due to a faulty rudder control and plowed into a 6-foot deep crater in the park, killing all 25 on board. No bodies found and no luggage either–the plane literally disintegrated on impact at 245 MPH. The largest piece of anything recovered was about the size of a standard 8.5×11 notebook (not including the flight recorders, which were recovered).

    OTOH you have USAir on the Hudson, which was a remarkable event, with little breakup or debris, and then two weeks ago was this (http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/04/13/lion-air-plane-crashes-in-bali/) where the plane simply slid off the end of the runway but still broke into pieces.

    My only point is that airliners can break up in different ways for different crashes, and as such a lack of debris or bodies is not necessarily indicative of a lack of an airplane at all. It may simply indicate the level of violence of the impact combined with angles and materials.

  289. Brian Holtz

    Steve M, the where-is-the-airplane question is about the Pentagon, not the WTC.

    AA77 hit the Pentagon at 530 mph.

    Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, so Mike’s data point is very interesting.

  290. Tom Blanton

    OK, Holtz, let’s not call it a diary. Let’s call it an amazing online record of the teachings of a great thinker, Brian Holtz. A valuable online reference that future generations will be able marvel at, each and every utterance of the wise sage of neo-libertarian authoritarianism preserved.

    Each word is pure genius and is available for all to read, re-read and then savor. And it is all free! I’m sure most devotees of Holtz would be willing to pay $9.95 per month to access ground-breaking material like “Blanton runs but cannot hide” that fully reveals the brilliant insight of a genius, as well as his superior writing abilities.

    There are not many purveyors of wisdom who are generous enough to take the time and effort to provide their loyal followers such an incredible record of such outstanding and brilliant blog posts. I am sure that the multitudes of Holtz fans across the globe appreciate this treasure trove of material.

  291. Steve M

    well then clearly the conspirators flew airplanes into the world trade center and a field in Pennsylvania (an obvious precursor to the LPPA problems) but decided to use a missile to hit the pentagon…. and to make sure that this was believable they arranged to crash United 585 into Wakefield Park 10 years earlier.

    Did I miss anything else?

  292. Rod Stern

    “Rod Stern practices civility so well that he makes it darn hard to top him in civility.”

    Thanks! I can’t say I’m always that way, but I try to be. At least most of the time.

    ” Ask him if he has any complaints.”

    None in this discussion. I just got a whole lot busier at work though, so I’m going back to lurking, at least for the most part, maybe entirely.

  293. Thomas L. Knapp

    TB @ 344 and elsewhere:

    Not sure why you have your panties in a twist just because Mr. Holtz does what damn near every blogger does — links and/or cross-posts to his own stuff when it appears somewhere other than on his own site.

    Granted, he’s a little more OCD about it than most of us, but personally I consider that a feature, not a bug, especially for his debate opponents — he makes everything he’s ever said as available as possible to them to use against him.

  294. Thomas L. Knapp

    I don’t consider the claim that Flight 93 was shot down implausible, nor is that hypothesis incompatible with there also having been a passenger uprising, complete with the phone calls that were widely publicized.

    The hijackers apparently took Flight 93 from its cruising altitude of 35k feet to more like 40k feet. A shootdown at that altitude would not likely be easily visible to the naked eye from the ground, nor audible from the ground.

    Of course “not implausible” is not the same thing as “proven.”

    And of course, the hypothesis that Flight 93 was shot down doesn’t necessarily support, and may even go against, the “inside job” theory of 9/11.

  295. Brian Holtz

    The shootdown theory pisses on the graves of the non-government responders who were the true heroes of 9/11.

    Here are some of their faces:

    The record of their heroic final moments will outlive by many millennia the ramblings of those who would deny their heroism.

  296. Brian Holtz

    09:58:57 They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold.

    09:59:04 Hold the door.

    09:59:09 Stop him.

    09:59:11 Sit down.

    09:59:13 Sit down.

    09:59:15 Sit down.

    09:58:16 Unintelligible.

    09:59:17 What?

    09:59:18 There are some guys. All those guys.

    09:59:20 Lets get them.

    09:59:25 Sit down.

    09:59:29 What?

    09:59:30 What.

    09:59:31 What?

    09:59:36 Unintelligible.

    09:59:37 What?

    09:59:39 Unintelligible.

    09:59:41 Unintelligible.

    09:59:42 Trust in Allah, and in him.

    09:59:45 Sit down.

    09:59:47 Unintelligible.

    09:59:53 Ahh.

    09:59:55 Unintelligible.

    09:59:58 Ahh.

    10:00:06 There is nothing.

    10:00:07 Is that it? Shall we finish it off?

    10:00:08 No. Not yet.

    10:00:09 When they all come, we finish it off.

    10:00:11 There is nothing.

    10:00:13 Unintelligible.

    10:00:14 Ahh.

    10:00:15 I’m injured.

    10:00:16 Unintelligible.

    10:00:21 Ahh.

    10:00:22 Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious.

    10:00:25 In the cockpit. If we don’t, we’ll die.

    10:00:29 Up, down. Up, down, in the cockpit.

    10:00:33 The cockpit.

    10:00:37 Up, down. Saeed, up, down.

    10:00:42 Roll it.

    10:00:55 Unintelligible.

    10:00:59 Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest.

    10:01:01 Unintelligible.

    10:01:08 Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?

    10:01:09 Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.

    10:01:10 Unintelligible.

    10:01:11 Saeed.

    10:01:12 … engine …

    10:01:13 Unintelligible.

    10:01:16 Cut off the oxygen.

    10:01:18 Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.

    10:01:34 Unintelligible.

    10:01:37 Unintelligible.

    10:01:41 Up, down. Up, down.

    10:01:41 What?

    10:01:42 Up, down.

    10:01:42 Ahh.

    10:01:53 Ahh.

    10:01:54 Unintelligible.

    10:01:55 Ahh.

    10:01:59 Shut them off.

    10:02:03 Shut them off.

    10:02:14 Go.

    10:02:14 Go.

    10:02:15 Move.

    10:02:16 Move.

    10:02:17 Turn it up.

    10:02:18 Down, down.

    10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down.

    10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

    10:02:33 Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.

    10:02:35 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

    10:02:37 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

    10:02:40 Unintelligible.

    10:03:02 Allah is the greatest.

    10:03:03 Allah is the greatest.

    10:03:04 Allah is the greatest.

    10:03:06 Allah is the greatest.

    10:03;06 Allah is the greatest.

    10:03:07 No.

    10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

    10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

  297. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “And of course, the hypothesis that Flight 93 was shot down doesn’t necessarily support, and may even go against, the ‘inside job’ theory of 9/11.”

    The theory that Flight 93 was shot down does not go against 9/11 having been an inside job at all, and the fact that you’d even raise this point shows me that you’ve got a lack of understanding on the subject.

    When people say that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the government carried out 9/11, they do not mean that everyone in the government was in on the attack. It would have only taken a few key people in a few key places. Even among those who were involved in carrying out the attack, I’d bet that even most of them did not know the entire plan. This is called being compartmentalized, that is where an individual knows only their part in an assignment, but they do not know what everyone else involved is doing, and they may not even be aware of the end goal of the assignment.

    Also, there just so happened to be drills going on that same day (coincidence?), which is a standard tactic that the perpetrators of these false flag operations do to keep people confused. It is quite possible that if Flight 93 was shot down – which there is evidence that suggests this – that it was done by people in government who were just doing their job and were not a part of the false flag (ie-inside job) that was taking place.

  298. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH,

    That’s all very nice and good. It might even be real.

    Or maybe not.

    IIRC, it was about three years after 9/11 before any tower audio was released, and another two years after that before even a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder was released.

    Which of those is it that you believe yourself to have an accurate transcript of?

    And even if it an accurate transcript, once again, there’s no reason why there couldn’t have been a passenger uprising AND a shootdown.

  299. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 354,

    “you’ve got a lack of understanding on the subject”

    Ah, one of your gentler retorts to those who decline to believe your claims until and unless you provide some actual evidence for them.

    You may noticed that I used the word “may,” not “does.”

    Unlike you, I do not mistake the content of my vivid imagination for proven fact.

  300. Brian Holtz

    KT@355: might … maybe … if … no reason why there couldn’t ….

    Some people, like the heroes of Flight 93, grapple with Reality.

    Others — Marines, even — take shelter behind the banalities of modal logic.

    To each his own.

    P.S. Tower audio records only radio transmissions, not ambient cockpit noise — like, say, the sound of a crew member begging for his life as he’s stabbed to death.

  301. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 357,

    You want to talk about reality? Here is reality:

    I do not know whether or not Flight 93 was shot down.

    Neither do you.

    I will not even provisionally believe it was shot down absent evidence to prove the hypothesis, even though the hypothesis is facially plausible.

    I will also not dismiss the hypothesis out of hand. The good feelings you get from believing what you believe do not constitute evidence that what you believe is the truth.

  302. Brian Holtz

    I do not know whether or not Flight 93 was shot down. Neither do you.

    You could say that about pretty much any crashed jet. “Know” (in your tendentious sense) and “dismiss out of hand” are strawmen. You’re better than that.

  303. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 359,

    “You’re better than that.”

    Well, I thought YOU were better than to misinterpret “plausible hypothesis” to mean “theory supported by evidence” and then to attempt to disprove it with Argument from Perceived Heroism. But apparently not.

    There may be facts that I’m unaware of which render the hypothesis implausible.

    There may also be evidence which I’m unaware of which elevate it from plausible hypothesis to sound theory.

    I’ve seen the movie, too. I found it moving as well. I’ve also seen Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer and enjoyed it, but I don’t assume that it’s true.

  304. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 30, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Andy @ 354,

    ‘you’ve got a lack of understanding on the subject’

    Ah, one of your gentler retorts to those who decline to believe your claims until and unless you provide some actual evidence for them.

    You may noticed that I used the word ‘may,’ not “does.”

    Unlike you, I do not mistake the content of my vivid imagination for proven fact.”

    I have never substituted imagination for fact. What I say about 9/11 is all based on facts. Nobody knows exactly what really happened in regard to the 9/11 attack (except perhaps those directly involved in carrying out the attack), however, there is a mountain of evidence that says that the official government story about 9/11 is a lie, and it is also clear that there are people within the government who have blocked a real investigation from taking place, furthermore, it is clear that the government benefited from the attack because it gave them an excuse to increase their power.

    I go more into the realm of SPECULATION when I have talked about the possibility of plants operating within the Libertarian Party and movement. I freely admit that this is SPECULATION as I do not have any evidence to back this up, but given that we already know that the government spies on and keeps files on pro-liberty groups, and given that we know that the government has in fact sent plants into organizations before, it would not surprise me at all if there were plants operating within the Libertarian Party and movement who act as saboteurs, provocateurs, and/or informants. The behavior of certain individuals in the party/movement really can make one wonder.

  305. Steve M

    the typical modus operandi of FBI infiltrators is to get the infiltrated group to be more radical and commit criminal acts, so those who argue for calmness and clarity are unlikely to be infiltrators.

    My take on the government investigation tends more towards Hanlon’s razor “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

  306. Brian Holtz

    Swing and a miss. I haven’t seen any Flight 93 movies.

    What counts is probability, not “plausibility”. I can separate my evaluation of Flight 93 probabilities from my respect for heroism. But I’m wondering whether you can separate your judgements here from your day job as a professional Internet contrarian.

    Given your kind remarks elsewhere in this thread, I’ll cede you the last word.

  307. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 363,

    “I’m wondering whether you can separate your judgements here from your day job as a professional Internet contrarian.”

    Actually, I don’t think any of my day jobs encompass that role to any great degree. I’m just a contrarian for fun 🙂

    As far as judgments regarding what happened with Flight 93 are concerned, my attitude is basically a suspension of judgment. I’m agnostic on the issue.

  308. Andy

    “Steve M // Apr 30, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    the typical modus operandi of FBI infiltrators is to get the infiltrated group to be more radical and commit criminal acts, so those who argue for calmness and clarity are unlikely to be infiltrators.”

    This is only one tactic of infiltrators. Another is to make a group less effective, by keeping it preoccupied on in fighting, or trying to steer the group into a less radical direction. Infiltrators also help the government with their files on group members, and give away plans of the group so that the government can stay ahead of them to derail the group from achieving success.

    “My take on the government investigation tends more towards Hanlon’s razor ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'”

    The plays to the false assumption that too many Libertarians make that everyone in government is stupid. This is not true at all. There is a difference between being evil and being stupid. The people who run the government are far from stupid. They are intelligent, cunning, and ruthless. They know exactly what they are doing, and this is why they are in control. They view politics as the art of manipulating stupid people to do what they want, and they are quite successful at it. If everyone in government were really so stupid and Libertarians were really so much smarter than Libertarians would have already won and we’d have a libertarian society right now. Underestimating your opponent is a very big mistake.

  309. Andy

    “The plays to the false assumption that too many Libertarians make that everyone in government is stupid.”

    Should read: “This plays to the false assumption…”

  310. Andy

    I suspect that the Barr/Root campaign of 2008 was likely part of a coordinated plan to sabotage the Libertarian Party. I also suspect that there are people in the party who play the opposite side(s) of the fence to the Barr/Root “Republican Lite” faction, as in they are phony opposition.

    Bob Barr was a former (?) CIA agent, and Root was an active neo-con who was recruited into the party by long time saboteur/provocateur Eric Rittberg-Dondero. Root publicly distanced himself from Rittberg-Dondero, yet this was just for show as the two were still buddies behind the scenes.

    I know of one other person in the LP who I’ve been told had worked for the CIA.

    There was also the mysterious hacking of Jim Duensing’s 9/11 Truth website Libertarians for Justice that happened during the LP National Convention in 2008, the event in which the Duensing family rented a room at the same hotel where the convention was taking place to hold a 9/11 Truth event. Isn’t it odd that that site just happened to go down during the time period when the national convention was taking place? Who attacked the site? Was it the same person or people who tried to prevent the 9/11 Truth event from taking place at the same hotel as the LP National Convention? My hunch is that it was, and my hunch is also that the operative or operatives involved were also a part of the Bob Barr / Wayne Root co-opting of the Libertarian Party. Whoever attacked the site had to have been somebody with a background in computers. I’ve got my suspicions about who it was.

    Look at the dysfunction that’s gone on in the state parties in Oregon, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and California. Is this all happening by accident or coincidence? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

    Who are the people who try to tear anyone down that is making the party more successful? Who are those who try to push the Libertarian Party off in non-libertarian directions? Who are those who get themselves into positions in the party and are then essentially useless in those positions? The answers to these questions could lead you to who the “operators” are.

    I suspect that if there are any operatives in the party, that there are not that many of them, just a few key people in a few key places would be all that was needed to ensure that the party never becomes successful. The last thing that the government would want would be a Libertarian Party that is principled and successful.

  311. Robert Capozzi

    a 367: The plays to the false assumption that too many Libertarians make that everyone in government is stupid. This is not true at all. There is a difference between being evil and being stupid.

    me: Good point. There’s also a difference between being confused and “evil” and stupid. Government is populated by very bright people quite often, but also very confused bright people. So, btw, are corporations, in my experience.

    There is no such thing as “evil,” though.

  312. Andy

    Robert Cappozi said: “me: Good point. There’s also a difference between being confused and ‘evil’ and stupid. Government is populated by very bright people quite often, but also very confused bright people.”

    There are certainly stupid people in government, but they are mostly at the lower levels.

    Yes, there are lots of confused people as well.

    So, btw, are corporations, in my experience.

    “There is no such thing as ‘evil,’ though.”

    I can’t say that I agree with you here, but perhaps you have a different word for describing people who intentionally do bad things. Sociopath or psychopath are other good words to describe them.

  313. Robert Capozzi

    a, there is no “bad,” either. There IS, however, harmful behavior. Everyone has their unconscious days. Those who are serially harmful and who seem unable to take responsibility for their behavior might be labelled socio- or psycho-pathic, yes.

    Was, say, Harry Truman a sociopath? Maybe. I do happen to believe that Nagasaki was the sickest act in human history, but he may just have been wildly confused about it.

    Or perhaps I am the confused one!

  314. Brian Holtz

    Whoever attacked the site had to have been somebody with a background in computers.

    That should narrow down the number of Libertarian suspects considerably.

  315. Andy

    “372 Brian Holtz // May 1, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    ‘Whoever attacked the site had to have been somebody with a background in computers.’

    That should narrow down the number of Libertarian suspects considerably.”

    I’ve got my suspicions about who it was. I think that it was somebody who supported Barr/Root. I could name suspects, but I’m not going to do that now. I’d bet that there are other people reading this right now who’d come up with some of the same suspects. I actually would not be surprised if the perpetrator(s) of the attack on Duensing’s 9/11 site was reading this thread.

  316. Andy

    I’ve been pretty busy working on a project since this thread started so I have not kept up with every post here. If I were not so busy there’d have been a lot more responses from me over the last few days.

    Anyway, just to save me some time, can anyone here let me know if Brian Holtz or George Phillies or any of the other pro-official government story supporters have accepted my challenge to put together a debate on the subject of 9/11 to be held at the LP National Convention in Columbus in 2014, which will be recorded and posted on line (I’d like to have it put on-line live as it happens, and then have it posted to YouTube)?

    If anyone has accepted the challenge, we should start making plans to make it happen. If they have not accepted the challenge, then they should be regarded as intellectual cowards and everything they say should be disregarded.

    It is past time to put up or shut up. I want to publicly humiliate you in Columbus. BRING IT ON!!!

  317. Andy

    I find it to be rather disturbing that there were people in the Libertarian Party who tried to prevent the 9/11 Truth event which the Duensing family put together for the LP National Convention in 2008 in Denver from happening. What in the hell kind of “Libertarian” would try to prevent other LP members from engaging in free discussion? That was certainly not a very Libertarian thing to do. It was more along the lines of something that an infiltrator would do.

    One person who stood up in favor of the 9/11 Truth event being able to take place was the late David Nolan. This was an example of why David Nolan was a good man.

    Regardless of what one thinks about 9/11, does anyone else here find it to be disturbing that there were Libertarian Party members who tried to prevent other Libertarian Party members from engaging in free discussion at an LP convention, and does anyone else find it to be disturbing that somebody hacked Jim Duensing’s 9/11 Truth site, Libertarians for Justice, so that it was down while the LP National Convention was taking place? What kind of slimeball would do something like this?

  318. Andy

    I actually know at least one of the people that was spied on by the Israeli company that was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security. This is a good person who was inspired to political action by the Ron Paul campaign in 2007-2008. It is publicly acknowledged that this person was spied on by this company. This was pretty messed up.

  319. Andy

    Note for everyone reading this: I’ve put out the public debate on video challenge since 2007 and nobody in the LP who is a defender of the official government story about 9/11 has accepted it, even though at least some of these people have been at the National Convention in Denver in 2008, Saint Louis in 2010, and Las Vegas in 2012, and note that in Denver in 2008 the Duensing’s had that room rented at the same hotel where the National Convention was taking place and they had a speaker there from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as a video camera, yet the defenders of the official government story did not have the balls to show up and debate.

  320. Brian Holtz

    Andy, regarding your challenge, see @125 and @129.

    My counter-challenge is @313.

    they should be regarded as intellectual cowards and everything they say should be disregarded

    Really? You go AWOL from this debate, and then come back with that? ROTFL.

  321. Brian Holtz

    Andy: defenders of the official government story

    Read @221. Then try to find the courage to stop misrepresenting your opponents.

  322. Brian Holtz

    Andy: Infiltrators also help the government with their files on group members, and give away plans of the group so that the government can stay ahead of them to derail the group from achieving success.

    This is exciting stuff. If we could prove that the 9/11 conspirators were infiltrating the LP, that would be the best turn of events for the LP in its entire history. It would not only prove that the U.S. government is omnimalevolent, but it would catapult the LP to the forefront of the resistance against that omnimalevolence.

    Andy, I challenge you to a debate in Columbus over whether the LP has been targeted for infiltration by the 9/11 conspirators. (Then to help the LP, I’ll throw the debate and confess to being an infiltrator. It’ll be our own little conspiracy.)

  323. Nicholas Sarwark

    The Libertarians I know are busy recruiting and supporting candidates, supporting initiatives, and growing the party. They don’t have time to punch down by debating conspiracy theorists and get sucked down a rabbit hole. But good luck getting someone to start punching at your tarbaby.

    You’ve managed to get this comment thread to 383, so you’ve got a shot.

  324. George Phillies

    The original editorial skipped truthers, birthers, and other nut jobs. But that’s where we ended up. As Brian Holtz demonstrates, truthers make stuff up as fast as they talk, while disproving their claims requires research time.

    Good capitalists would ask where there is substantial profit to be made here. The answer would appear to be items that are not quite so crazy,

  325. Brian Holtz

    truthers make stuff up as fast as they talk

    I’ve never doubted the sincerity of anyone with whom I’ve discussed 9/11. But so many of them have doubted my sincerity that it strengthens my hypothesis that they tend to uncritically latch onto theories that are convenient to believe.

  326. Mike Koch

    It’s not wise to automatically trust or distrust anyone based just on the words they say. Judge the words on their own merits, and people as you have a reason to judge them beyond just what they say.

  327. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 389: “I’ve never doubted the sincerity of anyone with whom I’ve discussed 9/11. But so many of them have doubted my sincerity that it strengthens my hypothesis that they tend to uncritically latch onto theories that are convenient to believe.”

    Hogwash. Have you forgotten your implication that I was trying to deceive people about the Project For the New American Century’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses?” Holtz @ 282: “I love it that you are willing to mislead people about a white paper that’s available for anybody to read.” That statement clearly questions my sincerity. And no, I did not mislead people. Instead, I provided the link for people to download the document and read it for themselves.

    Meanwhile, you have given people plenty of reasons to doubt your sincerity. We can start with your habit of putting words in people’s mouths that they didn’t say, thereby setting up straw men (e.g., the implication that I had claimed that the Popular Mechanics fairy tale used the words “liquify” and “impact,” and that it claimed the alleged airplane melted). Then you DOUBTED MY SINCERITY by claiming, “Either Alan uncritically parroted Truther disinformation, or he lied. Period.”

    Then @ 143 you put more words in my mouth by saying that I “effectively admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas.” As I pointed out in 252, I never said any such thing. In 143 you also called one of my arguments a “disinformation nugget” – clearly doubting my sincerity once again.

    In your post @ 149, you referred to a post by Rod Stern as a “bait-and-switch.” Sorry to break it to you Brian, but that allegation clearly doubts his sincerity. (Oh, and thanks for questioning Jill’s “honor or decency” in the same post. You could learn a lot about both from her, but I won’t hold my breath while I wait.)

    Then @ 173 you once again question my sincerity by saying, “Each time you bring up 9/11 in the future, I’ll keep asking you why someone using the name Pyeatt misled us here….” BTW, denigrating people’s evidence as “factoids” doesn’t help your case any.

    Then there’s this gem: “Alan: did you know the backstory above and intentionally mislead readers here, or were you just sloppy and didn’t bother to investigate the Truther factoid you parroted?” That clearly questions my sincerity.

    Holtz @ 298: “You can be uncivil to me, or you can make unsubstantiated charges that I’m uncivil to you, but it’s just hypocritical to do both.” It sure sounds like you’re doubting Jill’s sincerity to me.

    So stop giving us this arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude. You question people’s sincerity all the time.

  328. Alan Pyeatt

    BTW, I find it interesting that none of the apologists for the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory have noticed the one significant error I actually DID make.

  329. robert capozzi

    One can be sincere about a belief – in this case, 9/11 “Truth” – and yet resort to many shortcuts, overstatements, unsubstantiated assertions, and other techniques to make one’s point. Zealots can even sometimes believe in the technique’s appropriateness, having adopted an alternatve narrative completely.

    Some have concluded that 9/11 was an inside job based on suspicions and pieces of evidence, not grasping that the evidence they cite may or may not “prove” their case. They seem to connect the dots in ways that make sense to them. I sense a frustration on the part of Truthers that others don’t share in how they assemble their case.

  330. Alan Pyeatt

    At the risk of belaboring a point, I would like to set the record straight regarding the discussion of 9/11 as it relates to the Project for the New American Century’s report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”

    Brian Holtz argued on a previous thread that 9/11 was NOT a “new Pearl Harbor,” and repeated that claim on this thread. But then he agreed with me @ 282 that, “Nobody is disputing that 9/11 led to a couple wars,” (in other words, 9/11 WAS a “new Pearl Harbor”). But then he conflated that fact with allegations that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were “inside jobs.” Maybe he didn’t realize that these are 3 distinct possibilities, so I’ll concede the possibility that he made an honest error in claiming that 9/11 was NOT a new Pearl Harbor.

    But here’s an example of why I doubt his sincerity on this issue:

    He said, “I doubt most Truthers have even read the PNAC report.” O.k. But could it be that this is what he’s counting on? Because then he goes on to say:

    “If 9/11 was designed to advance the policy agenda of the PNAC report, then 9/11 was clearly a monumental failure.

    “The PNAC report called for:
    * maintenance of U.S. strategic nuclear superiority
    * homeland security via ballistic missile defenses
    * shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia”
    * a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control”

    “9/11 did not advance any of the above policy agenda items, and in fact distracted from each of them.”

    If Rebuilding America’s Defenses (i.e., the PNAC report) only mentioned the things you described, then it could be argued that your assessment is correct.

    The problem is, he’s left out a few “factoids.” Here’s the link to RAD again, in case anyone wants to download the actual document: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

    First, Brian left out the primary goal of RAD (from the Introduction, p. i): “The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the word’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.”

    Call me crazy, but it seems to me that toppling the Iraqi and Afghani regimes and installing ones that are more American-friendly, implementing a targeted assassination program, and installing drone bases in the Middle East and North Africa helps to achieve that objective.

    Then on pages iv-v, several needs are identified, including:

    “Establish four core missions for U.S. military forces:
    * defend the American homeland;
    * fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
    * perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
    * transform U.S. forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs;'”

    I will not argue in favor of the first point, because IMHO U.S. policy since 2001 has made the homeland less, not more, safe. But the second and third missions have clearly been accomplished.

    Another need: “Maintain nuclear strategic superiority, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.”

    What’s all the saber-rattling at Iran about? Oh yeah, an alleged emerging nuclear threat!

    “Restore the personnel strength of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the ‘Base Force’ outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.”

    According to Wiki Answers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_soldiers_are_in_the_US_military), there are currently just over 1.4 million active-duty troops, so that goal would seem to have been blocked. But then, that number doesn’t count military contractors, which have increased significantly since 9/11. I couldn’t find reliable numbers on military contractors, but we know that they have been significant in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they have been involved in combat missions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html).

    “Modernize current U.S. forces selectively, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey ’tilt-rotor’ aircraft for the Marine Corps.”

    In 2011, the F-22 fleet was ordered to stand down due to problems with the oxygen system (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/05/breaking-usaf-orders-f-22-flee.html). Production continued until December, 2011, and military procurement has moved on to the F-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor).

    I don’t know about submarine strength, but I do recall Obama moaning and wailing that the sequester would prevent deployment of a 2nd aircraft carrier group (i.e., a “surface combatant fleet”) to the Middle East.

    The Comanche helicopter program was canceled due to ” insurmountable technical problems” and vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Sikorsky_RAH-66_Comanche). The funds were used for drones instead.

    Despite cost over-runs and fatal crashes, production of the V-22 Osprey has continued. Earlier this year, the Defense Department has agreed to sell them to Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey).

    “Control the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.”

    The Space Command is still located within the Air Force, but now it employs more than 40,000 people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command). Maybe an IPR reader can provide further information. As for control of cyberspace, don’t forget the attack on Iran’s computers (http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-israeli-stuxnet-cyber-attacks-against-iran-act-of-war/5328514).

    There are other “needs” listed, including missile defenses, etc. that you referred to. But they may have saved the best for last:

    “Increase defense spending gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.”

    The numbers I found for 2012 are $707.5 billion for DOD spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States) and $15,094 billion for GDP (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp). Please note that defense spending does not include military-related expenditures by the Energy Department, NASA expenditures, debt on previous wars, etc. Even so, it comes out to just under 4.7% of GDP. That is significantly above the minimum goal of 3.5 – 3.8% of GDP, so I would call that a whopping success.

    Brian, you have (by omission) thoroughly misrepresented what RAD called for. And at least in some areas – including defense spending – 9/11 was clearly NOT “a monumental failure.”

  331. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “2) Your interlocutor, not feeling free to just make shit up, may not be able, in the environment of a live debate, to instantly research whatever bizarre shit you made up, in which case you “win;”

    The debate format could include the use of the internet, whereas, each side would have computers at or near their podiums so they can look things up to support their arguments in the live debate setting.

  332. Andy

    Brian Holtz said: “A live debate would just be a pointless recitation of their factoids, that I would again systematically demolish with a little post-game research. ”

    Great, then let’s see you do it. You can even use the internet in the live debate setting as I said in the post above.

    So are we on to set something up for Columbus in 2014, or perhaps some other venue, perhaps where a lot of LP members will be present.

    The perfect time to do this would have been at the 2008 LP National Convention when the Duensing family had that room rented out for a 9/11 Truth event, and they even had a speaker from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the event, as well as a video camera. I put out the challenge for the debate then, yet none of the official government story supporters bothered to show up, even though some of them were actually at the LP Convention which was in the same hotel.

    Once again, I still like to know who it was that hacked Jim Duensing’s Libertarians for Justice website so that it was down while the LP National Convention was taking place. I’ve got a hunch that I know who it was. Let’s just say that I think that it was somebody who was connected witht the Bob Barr campaign.

    What does everyone else here think about the cyber attack on the Libertarians for Justice website during the LP National Convention in 2008? I’d call that vandalism, which is the initiation of force, which is a violation of Libertarian principles. It was also a slimey thing to do.

  333. Andy

    This article adds some more fuel to the speculation about plants in the
    Libertarian Party / movement.

    http://bobmccarty.com/2013/01/30/brother-of-murder-victim-seeks-details-of-fbis-\
    sensitive-informant-program/

    From the article:

    “…the term `Sensitive Informant’ is defined as anyone acting, directly or
    indirectly and with or without any compensation, on behalf of the FBI as a
    member of, person associated with or otherwise a participant in or observer of
    the activity or activities of an entity, organization, group, governmental
    agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official,
    member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political organization AND
    who does not disclose or reveal to such entity, organization, group,
    governmental agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public
    official, member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political
    organization his or her FBI affiliation.

    “A Sensitive Informant is, in other words, some one who is acting, directly or
    indirectly, on behalf of the FBI as an undisclosed participant in or observer of
    the activity or activities of an entity, organization, group, governmental
    agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official,
    member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or political organization.

    “The term `Sensitive Informant’ likewise includes what the FBI’s current
    terminology refers to as a `Confidential Human Source’ including any and all
    sub-categories of Confidential Human Sources such as, but not limited to, what
    the FBI refers to as a `Privileged Confidential Human Source,’ who is someone reporting confidential information to the FBI in violation of a privilege such as an attorney reporting his client’s confidential communications, a physician reporting upon his patient’s medical or mental condition, a cleric informing on a member of his or her church or other religious organization, etc.

  334. Andy

    I’m reposting the link because the entire address did not connect in my cut & paste above.

    http://bobmccarty.com/2013/01/30/brother-of-murder-victim-seeks-details-of-fbis-\sensitive-informant-program/

    I found this part to be very interesting:

    “A Sensitive Informant is, in other words, some one who is acting, directly or
    indirectly, on behalf of the FBI as an undisclosed participant in or observer of
    the activity or activities of an entity, organization, group, governmental
    agency or unit, association of organizations or individuals, public official,
    member of Congress, judge, cleric and/or religious or
    political organization.”

    Notice how it says that a “Sensitive Informant” could be acting as an
    “undisclosed participant” in a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. I wonder if one of those
    political organizations could be the Libertarian Party.

  335. Andy

    I posted this in another thread here, but I’m reposting it because I think that it is relavent to the discussion:

    This story is from 2002, but it is still relevant today. The Denver police
    department got caught keeping “spy files” on groups that they thought were a
    threat to the government. One group that they had spy files on was the
    Libertarian Party.

    http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/09/spyfiles.html

  336. Andy

    Here is the a response from the Libertarian Party of Colorado about the Denver
    police keeping files on them:

    http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/09/lpfiles.html

    Remember, this was 11 years ago. How many pro-liberty groups is the government
    monitoring today, and do they have infiltrators in these groups who act as
    informants and/or saboteurs and/or provocateurs?

  337. Andy

    “George Phillies // May 4, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    The original editorial skipped truthers, birthers, and other nut jobs. But that’s where we ended up. As Brian Holtz demonstrates, truthers make stuff up as fast as they talk, while disproving their claims requires research time.”

    I don’t believe that you or Holtz have “destroyed” anything, expcept perhaps your own credibility as Libertarians.

    Why is it that the both of you are happy to call names from behind a computer screen, yet neither will participate in an in person debate, which could be live streamed over the internet, and then posted to YouTube?

    “Good capitalists would ask where there is substantial profit to be made here. The answer would appear to be items that are not quite so crazy,”

    This is a completely absurd statement. The official government conspiracy theory side is actually the side that has generated enourmous profits.

    You and Holtz are both conspiracy theorist as well, the only difference is that you two spout the conspriracy theories that the government and the Mockingbird media want everyone to believe.

  338. Jill Pyeatt

    Seriously, how can anyone, with any awareness at all, believe ANYTHING our government tells us???

    Has anyone been following Benghazi? Even the Boston bombing story has been changed over and over again.

    WTF???

  339. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy @ 404: I’ve been thoroughly amused at how certain Brian, Thomas, and George have been that they’ve won on this topic. They’ve been so busy congratulating themselves that they perhaps didn’t notice that they’ve just been speaking to their own choir. They certainly didn’t convince me of anything. Just because Brian posted an explanation of what he thinks happened at the Pentagon doesn’t mean he convinced me. Implausible still means implausible to me.

  340. Jill Pyeatt

    GP: “truthers make stuff up as fast as they talk:.

    I see absolutely no evidence of this. I’ve pointed out http://www.ae911truth.org which has tons of genuine scientific evidence. Here are a couple more:

    http://www.pilotsfor 911truth.com
    http://www.911blogger.com

    There is much more evidence that’s been collected since 2006. Debunking sites can’t even keep up.

    I would also recommend a few eyewitness accounts, such as April Gallop’s and
    William Rodriguez’s. And then there was Barry
    Jennings–oh, yeah, he’s dead.

  341. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // May 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Seriously, how can anyone, with any awareness at all, believe ANYTHING our government tells us.”

    The government lies so much that I’m suspect of anyone who thinks that they tell the truth. Sure, not every little thing from government is a total lie, there is some truth mixed in with the lies, but you’ve got to sugar coat the posion or else the public will not eat it.

    Anyone who thinks that the government is honest falls into one or more of the following categories:

    1) They are just flat out stupid.

    2) They are naive.

    3) They are uniformed.

    4) They are cowards, as in they may suspect or know that the government lies, but they do not have the courage to do anything about it or to confront it, so as a defense mechanism, they pretend as though the government tells the truth.

    5) They are conformists. We live in a society where big government dominates, therefore, this is the status quo (or statist quo as some fellow libertarians may put it). Part of being a conformist is to “toe the line” in what is considered to be “popular opinion,” which, in a society that has an ever expanding state, is going to generall fall in line with what the government says.

    6) They are intentionally lying themselves. They may work in government, or work as a government contractor, or perhaps they have family who works in or contracts with government, or perhaps they are the recipient of some form of government welfare or a grant from the government, or perhaps they are connected with government in some other way (family, etc…). These are people who directly benefit from government largesse, so they have a vested interest in promoting government lies. Government plants/disinfo agents fall into this same category.

  342. Andy


    407Jill Pyeatt // May 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    Andy @ 404: I’ve been thoroughly amused at how certain Brian, Thomas, and George have been that they’ve won on this topic.”

    It’s pretty clear to me that they are not really interested in an open debate. All three were in Denver in 2008 where, weeks prior to the LP National Convention, I put out an open debate challenge to be held during that event in which the Duensing family sponsored, which included a speaker from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and could have included some other speakers from the 9/11 Truth Movement (I had verbal agreements from a coule of heavy hitters to come to the event, but when nobody answered my challenge prior to the event taking place I never ended up making the arrangments to book them for the event), and where a video camera was at the event, yet none of them showed up to debate.

  343. Andy

    Check out the video I posted in post number 406 where Walter Burien talks about how the government investment funds profited from 9/11.

  344. Robert Capozzi

    405 jp: Seriously, how can anyone, with any awareness at all, believe ANYTHING our government tells us???

    me: Hmm, depends on what level you are speaking from.

    The better question as I see it is: Do you believe that everything the government tells us is false?

  345. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // May 8, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    405 jp: Seriously, how can anyone, with any awareness at all, believe ANYTHING our government tells us???

    me: Hmm, depends on what level you are speaking from.

    The better question as I see it is: Do you believe that everything the government tells us is false?”

    I already addressed this in post #409, and Jill already said that she agreed with me in post #410.

  346. Andy

    I just found this arctile from Wendy McElroy about government informants within libertarianism:

    http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.3505.1

    Exert from the article:

    “Everyone knows there are police informants within the libertarian movement. With FBI and other police gathering files on everyone from Quakers to home schoolers, it is not credible that the authorities would not keep tabs on a movement ripe with anarchists, gun-rights advocates, anti-war dissidents, drug legalization activists, civil rights lawyers, political candidates, etc. And whomever the police informants are, they probably fit into one of two categories: someone who just seems a bit ‘off’ or someone you’d never, ever suspect.

    ‘Ernest Withers is a cautionary tale concerning the latter. A recent headline in The National Post ((09/14/10)) read: Celebrated civil rights photographer was FBI informant.’

    Ernest Withers had seen it all. Described as the ‘original civil rights photographer’ he was present at some of the most important events during the movement. He snapped photos at the murder scene of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Little Rock crisis. Little did his subjects know that he was doing some other work on the side. Memphis Commercial Appeal has revealed that Withers, who died in 2007 at the age of 85, worked as a paid FBI informant. The newspaper possesses numerous reports that show Withers was spying on King and other activists, including the day before his murder when he met with what the FBI thought were black militants.”

  347. Jill Pyeatt

    RC @ 15: “The better question as I see it is: Do you believe that everything the government tells us is false?”

    The answer is yes. I now think our government is so corrupt that there’s very little truth in what they tell us.

  348. Andy

    Another way that the government gets people to acts as plants (be they informants, saboteurs, provoteurs, or disinfo agents) is to get dirt on people, and then blackmail them into becoming plants. They may catch somebody with drugs, or in embarrassing pictures (perhaps pictures of them having sex with minors, etc…), or something similar, and then they make them an offer which goes something like, “Go to work for us, or do some time in prison.”

  349. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “The answer is yes. I now think our government is so corrupt that there’s very little truth in what they tell us.”

    Jill, there is some truth, but it is mixed with a lot of lies and/or spin and/or intentional ommissions.

  350. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy says: “Jill, there is some truth, but it is mixed with a lot of lies and/or spin and/or intentional ommissions.”

    I certainly won’t argue with that. That’s why I do my own research before I reach a decision. There are a couple conservative sites I visit, and some liberal sites. Then I usually look at what Russia Today is saying, as well as Al-Jazheera.
    Sometimes I don’t reach an opinion on a topic, but sometimes it’s pretty clear what really happened.

    This might be why I keep moving closer and closer to considering myself an anarchist.

  351. Andy

    The article above references this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/CIA-Off-Campus-Building-Recruitment/dp/0896084035

    “From Library Journal
    Mills, an experienced political activist, describes several CIA overseas operations and domestic recruiting and research programs on college campuses that she views as illegal and immoral. In addition to sketching a brief history of anti-CIA efforts on campus, she provides instructions to interested readers on how to detect secret CIA activities on campus and how to organize and operate a local anti-CIA movement. This specialized handbook will probably appeal only to a limited audience, but should nevertheless be made available in academic and public libraries.
    – Daniel K. Blewett, Loyola Univ. Lib., Chicago
    Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.”

  352. Jill Pyeatt

    Oh, yeah–Osama bin Laden’s re-murder.

    Apparently, some people can die over and over.

  353. Andy

    Here’s an interesting book I just found on Amazon.com:

    http://www.amazon.com/CIA-Campus-Academic-National-Security/dp/0786463465

    “Book Description
    Publication Date: August 22, 2011 | ISBN-10: 0786463465 | ISBN-13: 978-0786463466
    Former CIA Personnel Director F.W.M. Janney once wrote, “It is absolutely essential that the Agency have available to it the greatest single source of expertise: the American academic community.” To this end, the Central Intelligence Agency has poured tens of millions of dollars into universities to influence research and enlist students and faculty members into its ranks. This collection of nine essays from diverse academic fields explores the pernicious penetration of intelligence services into U.S. campus life to exploit academic study, recruit students, skew publications, influence professional advancement, misinform the public, and spy on professors. With its exhaustive list of CIA misdeeds and myriad suggestions for combatting the subversion of academic independence, this work provides a wake-up call for students and faculty across the country.”

  354. Mel Presley

    Andy….speaking from experience?! Is this what happened to you?

    Another way that the government gets people to acts as plants (be they informants, saboteurs, provoteurs, or disinfo agents) is to get dirt on people, and then blackmail them into becoming plants. They may catch somebody with drugs, or in embarrassing pictures (perhaps pictures of them having sex with minors, etc…), or something similar, and then they make them an offer which goes something like, “Go to work for us, or do some time in prison.”..

  355. Andy

    “Mel Presley // May 8, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Andy….speaking from experience?! Is this what happened to you?”

    No, but I will say that nobody is above being a suspected plant, although some are less likely than others. I look to behavior.

    Is the person in question attacking others who are actually building the party/movement? Is the person in question trying to steer the party in a non-libertarian direction, or away from talking about certain issues? Does the person in question spend more time engaging in infighting than building the party? Does the person in question seek to place themselves in positions within the party, but then once in those positions, is essentially useless, or perhaps destructive, or maybe they attempt to look like they are trying to get things done, but things always end up getting done in a half assed manner?

    I may be ruffling some feathers here, but I’m not ruffling any feathers that don’t deserve to be ruffled.

  356. Andy

    “Mel Presley // May 8, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Andy….speaking from experience?! Is this what happened to you? ”

    Why do I get the feeling that Mel Presley is a fake name?

  357. Brian Holtz

    I may be ruffling some feathers here

    Not at all. To actually ruffle feathers would require the courage to name names, Senator.

    I again challenge you to debate at an LP convention the question: What are the names of the persons in the LP most likely to be a government informant or provocateur?

  358. Robert Capozzi

    437 a: …away from talking about certain issues?

    me: Many abolitionist Ls refuse to talk about the wisdom of the abolitionist approach. Does that make them likely informants?

  359. Robert Capozzi

    a437: No, but I will say that nobody is above being a suspected plant….

    me: To quote that great libertarian, Bill Clinton: “I feel your pain.”

    Although he was apparently correct in some cases, I gotta believe that Joe McCarthy did not have a good time on this mortal coil. How can one sleep always wondering who is out to “get me”?

  360. Alan Pyeatt

    Mel @ 436: If you don’t think that is a common FBI tactic, you might want to talk to somebody who was involved in the American Indian Movement or the Black Panthers in the 1970s.

    A person would have to be incredibly naive to think that the LP hasn’t been the target of a COINTELPRO-type operation, including infiltration, cognitive and otherwise. $5 TRILLION provides a lot of incentive, and of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as it doesn’t include subsidies and limiting liability for the nuclear power industry, foreign aid ($1.3 Billion to Egypt this year alone), protecting Big Pharma from competition (medical marijuana dispensary raids, anyone?), etc., etc.

    At the first LP meeting I went to in California, the speaker recommended that we read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” That was GREAT advice! No libertarian would agree with Alinsky’s leftist goals, but we can all benefit from his experience with tactical methods. If nothing else, it helps the reader to identify COINTELPRO-type tactics, and Alinsky’s tactics themselves, which, despite all their rhetoric, the neocons have adopted.

    Case in point: look at the title of this thread. It doesn’t necessarily mean that George is an infiltrator, but demeaning and ridiculing your opponent is a tactic that Alinsky popularized, which the interventionists have used to great advantage since 9/11.

    Brian @ 439: “I again challenge you to debate at an LP convention the question: What are the names of the persons in the LP most likely to be a government informant or provocateur?”

    Hmm. This isn’t proof that Brian’s an infiltrator either, but stirring up shit among the target group and getting them to fight against each other is also a common COINTELPRO tactic. A good example is Anna Mae Pictou (a.k.a. Anna Mae Aquash), who was “bad-jacketed” by FBI operatives within AIM. Then one day, she was discovered dead on the Pine Ridge reservation by an FBI agent and a BIA agent, whose report said they saw no signs of violence. The FBI’s autopsy confirmed that she died of “exposure.” But when the family obtained a court order to exhume her body (which Indians NEVER do, except in the most extreme cases), two bullet holes were found in the back of her skull. And all this was over a few gold mining leases in the sacred Black Hills.

    THAT’s the level of violence and tyranny that we’re dealing with.

  361. Alan Pyeatt

    Mel @ 446: Interesting. Sorry if I misunderstood, but my experience with Paulie leads me to a different conclusion than yours.

    I’m curious as to why you think “drug addiction and perverted sex habits” – even if true – would be effective material for blackmail within the context of the LP?

  362. Andy

    “Brian Holtz // May 9, 2013 at 9:42 am

    I may be ruffling some feathers here

    Not at all. To actually ruffle feathers would require the courage to name names, Senator.”

    I freely acknowledge that my talk of plants in the Libertarian Party and movement is in the territory of SPECULATION.

    “I again challenge you to debate at an LP convention the question: What are the names of the persons in the LP most likely to be a government informant or provocateur?”

    There really is not anything to debate here since I have already said that this is SPECULATION.

    We do have facts that indicate that the government spies on a bunch of groups, including pro-liberty groups, and we do have evidence that the government sends plants into organizations, but without further evidence, we can’t say for sure who the plants are or if there are plants in the LP. Once again, this is SPECULATION.

    When I talk about 9/11, I talk about the facts that indicate that the official governemnt story about 9/11 is a lie. Nobody (except for those directly involved) really knows exactly what all happened on 9/11. We (as in 9/11 Truthers) just know that the government is lying about it, and that government officials have blocked a real investigation from taking place. We also know that the government (as well as politically connected corporations who feed at the public trough) have benefited from 9/11.

    I will say that the entire Bob Barr – a former (?) CIA agent – Wayne Root affair looked like an operation to me. Were they being directed by somebody or some group from the outside? I don’t know, but it sure looked suspicious.

    Eric Dondero-Rittberg’s behavior is quite suspicious as well. Is he being directed by handlers or is he just a “lone nut,” I don’t know.

    It seems pretty apparent to me that Holtz is dodging my debate challenge on 9/11. My SPECULATION about plants has little to do with the FACTS about 9/11.

  363. Andy

    “Nicholas Sarwark // May 9, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Paranoia will destroy ya.”

    Good song. I hadn’t heard this in a long time. Thanks for posting.

  364. Andy

    Alan Pyeatt said: “Hmm. This isn’t proof that Brian’s an infiltrator either, but stirring up shit among the target group and getting them to fight against each other is also a common COINTELPRO tactic.”

    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. This does not prove that Holtz is a plant, maybe he’s just a conformist or terminally naive, but yes, getting a target group to fight amongst itself is a COINTELPRO tactic.

  365. Robert Capozzi

    445 ap: Over and over, I heard these words: “Once you’re in The Company, you’re ALWAYS in The Company.”

    me: Yes, we hear many slogans in our lives. Are all slogans true? Is this one? Is everyone who’s ever been in the CIA STILL in the CIA? Barr included?

    Consider the possibility that not everything you hear is true. Just like your skepticism of the official descriptions of 9/11!!!

  366. Andy

    “Alan Pyeatt // May 9, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Another data point: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/houstonnorml/message/7239.

    I attended college at the No. 2 university for CIA recruiting. Over and over, I heard these words: ‘Once you’re in The Company, you’re ALWAYS in The Company.'”

    Interesting. I petitioned to get the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in Texas in 2004. I worked in Austin the entire time I was there which is home to the University of Texas. I remember running into a guy there who either was, or had been a student at the University of Texas who told me that he had been approached by a CIA recruiter.

    “And you can bet your ass that I voted against Barr on all 6 ballots in Denver.”

    I voted against Barr on every ballot in Denver as well. I gave him a chance when I first heard the talk about him running but it did not take me very long to figure out that he was not going to be an appropriate candidate for the Libertarian Party. I tried to warn people about him but unfortunately not enough people listened to me. I gave him another chance after he became the candidate, but his campaign was one let down after the next, and we all know the rest of the story.

  367. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: Yes, we hear many slogans in our lives. Are all slogans true? Is this one? Is everyone who’s ever been in the CIA STILL in the CIA? Barr included?

    Consider the possibility that not everything you hear is true. Just like your skepticism of the official descriptions of 9/11!!!”

    This is a good point, but in the case of Bob Barr, it is pretty clear to me that his campaign, as well as his post campaign actions, were bad for the LP. The question is, was Barr being directed by some outside force, or did he “mastermind” this on his own?

  368. Andy

    “Case in point: look at the title of this thread. It doesn’t necessarily mean that George is an infiltrator, but demeaning and ridiculing your opponent is a tactic that Alinsky popularized, which the interventionists have used to great advantage since 9/11.”

    It’s easy to sit back and name call and then run away when anyone challenges you to a live, public debate, which would be recorded on video and put online.

    I don’t believe that George ever proved his case that one is a “crackpot” if one speaks out against the United Nations. That strikes me as baseless name calling.

  369. Robert Capozzi

    452 a: This is a good point, but in the case of Bob Barr, it is pretty clear to me that his campaign, as well as his post campaign actions, were bad for the LP.

    me: Sure. Hospers was damaging, he later endorsed W. MacBride went back to the Rs. Clark said “low tax liberal,” causing MNR to have a brain aneurysm. Etc. Etc. Etc.

  370. paulie

    Alan,

    “Mel” appears to have been the same troll that has been posting neo-nazi garbage and personal attacks under multiple names.

  371. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: Sure. Hospers was damaging, he later endorsed W. MacBride went back to the Rs. Clark said ‘low tax liberal,’ causing MNR to have a brain aneurysm. Etc. Etc. Etc.”

    The thing with John Hospers endorsing George W. Bush happens many years after his run for President, and by that time most people – even many libertarians – did not even know who John Hospers was.

    I would not put Ed Clark calling himself a “low tax liberal” in the same category of all of the stuff that Barr did that was wrong.

  372. Brian Holtz

    Alan Pyeatt@393: the context of my “sincerity” remark was George saying “truthers make stuff up as fast as they talk”, similar to how Knapp said truthers “make shit up”. I’ve never accused the truthers I debate of making up their factoids. Instead, I’ve said that they uncritically parrot those factoids.

    It’s true that when I debunk a Truther factoid, the Truthers sometimes don’t follow their standard M.O. of changing the subject, and instead double down on the factoid. That’s the point at which I do question whether their disinformation is intentional. Two examples:

    1) Popular Mechanics wrote that “a crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building” because “what was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass”. This clearly was a point about a disintegrating jet not maintaining the structural integrity of a solid, but the internets are now full of truther misrepresentations that PM made a metallurgical claim that the aluminum of the jet “liquified” or “vaporized”. You parroted this misrepresentation, and when you doubled down on it, I wrote @301: “I’m not going to debate what any competent reader of English can see in a text. If anybody with a real name (and that doesn’t have the same last name as Alan) agrees with his reading, please speak up, or else I rest my case regarding Alan’s credibility.” (I’d crow that not even Andy has bothered to endorse your reading, but that probably just means that nobody besides us is reading this.)

    2) @265 I repeated my debunking of the ubiquitous Truther claim that the PNAC white paper is a smoking gun that the insiders wanted a “new Pearl Harbor”. You then tried to bait-and-switch this into a dispute about whether 9/11 led to wars and expanded defense spending, which nobody ever denied. It remains possible that you simply don’t understand how much freight the trutherweb thinks its PNAC factoid can carry. I stand by my claim that the PNAC report “was not about terrorism or Iraq or the middle east. It was about strategic missile/space/naval threats from Asian land powers.” If you’ve read the report and still dispute that claim, then I rest my case that you are misleading people about its contents, and I again will not debate what any competent reader of English can see in a text.

    AP: Then you DOUBTED MY SINCERITY by claiming, “Either Alan uncritically parroted Truther disinformation, or he lied. Period.”

    Oh. My. God. You cannot be this close to functionally illiterate. I wrote that you were uncritical OR insincere, and you read this as an outright claim that you are insincere? Do you really not know how to read the word “or”?

    I stand by my claim that you “effectively admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas.” I quote your admission: I mean, come on, you really want “journalists and historians” to be the judge? Have you never heard of Murray Rothbard’s concept of “Court Historians?” You tried to unring that bell @252 by saying “that doesn’t mean they will be successful forever.” Well, which is it? If you thought your theory had even a 10% chance of winning, you’d take my bet.

    Re: “disinformation nugget”: when I say you “uncritically parrot” a “disinformation nugget”, I’m obviously not calling you insincere. I’m just calling you uncritical. If you can’t figure out the difference, then that explains a lot about what’s going on here.

    “Bait-and-switch” @149 obviously wasn’t questioning Rod’s sincerity. I just said I wasn’t going to switch to a new topic of his choosing unless he gave his opinion of whether you’d misrepresented Popular Mechanics.

    Regarding Jill’s honor and decency, I repeat: I said two specific behaviors were “hypocritical” when done by the same person. I’d dare you to dispute my accusation, but Jill already apologized for one of the behaviors in question.

    Bottom line: I’ve never accused you of concocting any disinformation, but I’ve twice caught you spreading it, and you doubled down when busted. Any native speaker of English can decide whether your misreading of PM and PNAC is intentional or not.

    My diagnosis is that you are too emotionally invested in the Truther factoids you repeat to ever admit that any of them ever turned out to be misleading. You can’t possibly believe that the case of a 9/11 inside job hinges on a PM quote about “liquid” and a PNAC quote about “Pearl Harbor”. Your dogged determination not to fold these two losing hands suggests a subconscious realization that the rest of the Truther canon is a house of cards.

  373. Brian Holtz

    Alan Pyeatt @444 “This isn’t proof that Brian’s an infiltrator either, but stirring up shit among the target group and getting them to fight against each other is also a common COINTELPRO tactic. A good example is Anna Mae Pictou […] two bullet holes were found in the back of her skull”.

    Comparing what I do here to murder? Really? I’m trying hard to be offended by your clumsy innuendo, but all I can do is laugh.

  374. George Phillies

    @459 Brian raises an excellent point, namely that some truther crackpots are not original to make things up, and simply parrot what they have read elsewhere.

  375. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian @ 459: “I wrote that you were uncritical OR insincere, and you read this as an outright claim that you are insincere?”

    I could be wrong, but I doubt there are very many people on IPR who really fall for that. Just because you use the word “or” and provide one possible alternative (out of all possible alternatives), does not mean that you aren’t trying to throw doubt on someone’s sincerity. And just because I think you’re being duplicitous doesn’t make me “functionally illiterate” any more than it makes you a diplomat.

    And yes, I doubt your sincerity, because I think you are intentionally trying to mislead people. Your remarks about the PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses seem to make your position pretty clear.

  376. Brian Holtz

    Alan @462, my use of “or” was an attempt to get you to defend how critically you had examined the factoid you parroted. It worked. I trapped you in the corner of defending a clear misreading of the Popular Mechanics article.

    To see shameful innuendo, re-reread your @444. As I said above: Comparing what I do here to murder? Really? I’m trying hard to be offended by your clumsy innuendo, but all I can do is laugh.

    Re: PNAC, I am delighted to hang the state of our debate on whether the PNAC white paper is a smoking gun that 9/11 was an insider conspiracy. That’s a slam dunk for anybody who bothers to actually read the pdf. It says “the prime directive for transformation will be to design and deploy a global missile defense system”.

    Remind us, what does that have to do with box-cutters?

  377. Jill Pyeatt

    Box-cutters–LOL. What a bunch of wimps the American men were on the planes to let box-cutters scare them off.

  378. paulie

    Box cutters will cut as good as a switch blade. I’ve spent some time working in factories, shipping departments especially.

  379. Alan Pyeatt

    BH @ 463: “Remind us, what does that have to do with box-cutters?”

    Brian, why don’t you remind US who made that claim? You’re the only person I recall mentioning it. So, that’s really a red herring, isn’t it?

  380. Alan Pyeatt

    “I trapped you in the corner of defending a clear misreading of the Popular Mechanics article.”

    No, you didn’t. You interpret the PM language to be an analogy. But it’s a description of the state of matter of an airplane weighing several tons. Let’s not forget that you also tried to “trap” me by erecting straw men, saying that I had claimed that the words “liquify” and “impact” were included in the PM article, when I said no such thing. I said the PM article described materials changing from one state of matter to another – in other words, from a solid state to “a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.” Also @143 you claimed that I “admitted that his theory of 9/11 will never win in the marketplace of ideas,” when I never said any such thing.

    That’s not “debunking” anything, it’s just a weak attempt to confuse the issues and convince people to believe one of the most implausible conspiracy theories in the history of mankind.

  381. Alan Pyeatt

    BTW, Brian, I’m still waiting for you to ask me about the one significant error I DID make regarding the Pentagon, as I mentioned @ 394. But all I hear are, in Brian’s words, “crickets.”

    Why is that, Brian? Is it because you aren’t creative enough to know what that error was, OR is it that you don’t have a neocon talking point about it to parrot?

  382. Alan Pyeatt

    Brian @ 460: “Comparing what I do here to murder? Really? I’m trying hard to be offended by your clumsy innuendo, but all I can do is laugh.”

    Hmm. I pointed out the lengths the FBI has gone to in order to disrupt organizations that attempt to change society. After all, $5 trillion in defense spending alone can provide a lot of motivation for dirty tricks, and that doesn’t include all the foreign aid, corporate subsidies, liability protection, etc. that the LP potentially threatens. So yes, there is a lot of motivation for those who benefit from those policies to infiltrate the liberty movement and attempt to derail it, whether through the FBI, or not. I wasn’t necessarily accusing you, and I pointed out in my post that your question to Andy wasn’t positive proof. But the fact that you wanted him to provide “the names of the persons in the LP most likely to be a government informant or provocateur” sure is reminiscent of the COINTELPRO tactics the FBI has used in the past to create dissension among AIM and Black Panther members. So if the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it. But I can see why you wouldn’t want IPR readers to take that possibility seriously, and try to laugh it off.

    You don’t have to be a Christian to know good advice when you hear it. And in this connection it might be a good idea to remember that, “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

  383. Brian Holtz

    Alan Pyeatt @468: saying that I had claimed that the words “liquify” and “impact” were included in the PM article

    When @252 you tried to argue that your word “liquify” has precisely the same meaning as what PM wrote about, you put it in quotes, so I pointed out to readers that it’s your word, not PM’s. “Liquify” remains a Truther strawman, even when you put it in quotes.

    @469 I’m too busy documenting your other mistakes to ask you for new ones. That well isn’t going dry any time soon.

    @470 For the record, I asked Alan: “Comparing what I do here to murder? Really?” In response, he worked his way to saying: “So if the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it.

  384. Brian Holtz

    I have in my possession evidence that one of the people in the LP accused of being a mole is in fact a government infiltrator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *