So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
documents are taken out of context..
the experts are bullshit working out of their field..
and the people refuting it are scientists...
google the loosechange rebuttal or youtube screw Loose change
First off, which version did you see? He made three different ones, each with a slightly different conclusion.
I've never even heard of this. What's it about?
9/11 was an inside plot by the US gvt; a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon; WTC collapse was a demolition, not a structural collapse.
Quote from: Not LMNO on February 24, 2009, 02:55:09 PM
First off, which version did you see? He made three different ones, each with a slightly different conclusion.
Haven't got to the conclusion yet. I'm about 3/4 way through the first half (2-part torrent)
I think it's called "final cut" but I could be wrong I'll check again tonite
My problem is that all the truther's conclusions seem to come down to an insurance money scam, don't they? Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't believe anyone is grotesque enough to kill thousands of innocent people just for money.
Are they arguing something new now?
Three easily debunked points:
1. The cable spools at the pentagon are fucked up.
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/CableSpools.jpg)
2. Marvin Bush had nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of security at the World Trade Center, plus he left his position as a board member of the company that did provide security in June 2000, more than 14 months before the terrorist attacks.
3. Osama doesn't wear a ring? Bullshit.
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/Nov3OsamaTVSpeech.jpg)
To be fair, When I first heard the attacks being reported they listed the fourth flight (flight 92) as having been shot down.
(which makes sense to me, if they knew the plane was jacked it seems like a plausable solution).
Only later did they change it to the flight was braught down by someone on board.
This always seemed to me to be that the gov was just trying to save face rather then admit they had to shoot down the plane.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 24, 2009, 03:07:45 PM
My problem is that all the truther's conclusions seem to come down to an insurance money scam, don't they? Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't believe anyone is grotesque enough to kill thousands of innocent people just for money.
Are they arguing something new now?
I always tell people they used it to further aims to make a totalitarian state and secure the pipelines in Afghanistan.
Shit, my story is ten times as convincing as theirs and I've put no fucking effort whatsoever into inventing mine :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on February 24, 2009, 03:15:45 PM
To be fair, When I first heard the attacks being reported they listed the fourth flight (flight 92) as having been shot down.
(which makes sense to me, if they knew the plane was jacked it seems like a plausable solution).
Only later did they change it to the flight was braught down by someone on board.
This always seemed to me to be that the gov was just trying to save face rather then admit they had to shoot down the plane.
I'd be willing to entertain that part of the conspiracy theories. It does seem to be a plausible scenario. Though, there is that bit of audio that was released from a cell phone convo making it sound like some passengers were about to take on the hijackers.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:19:25 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 24, 2009, 03:07:45 PM
My problem is that all the truther's conclusions seem to come down to an insurance money scam, don't they? Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't believe anyone is grotesque enough to kill thousands of innocent people just for money.
Are they arguing something new now?
I always tell people they used it to further aims to make a totalitarian state and secure the pipelines in Afghanistan.
Shit, my story is ten times as convincing as theirs and I've put no fucking effort whatsoever into inventing mine :lulz:
That makes some sense. There's a part in Illuminatus that says that sort of thing would happen. DAMN YOU RAW!!
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 24, 2009, 03:26:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:19:25 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 24, 2009, 03:07:45 PM
My problem is that all the truther's conclusions seem to come down to an insurance money scam, don't they? Maybe I'm not cynical enough but I don't believe anyone is grotesque enough to kill thousands of innocent people just for money.
Are they arguing something new now?
I always tell people they used it to further aims to make a totalitarian state and secure the pipelines in Afghanistan.
Shit, my story is ten times as convincing as theirs and I've put no fucking effort whatsoever into inventing mine :lulz:
That makes some sense. There's a part in Illuminatus that says that sort of thing would happen. DAMN YOU RAW!!
Whenever I'm cooking up something like this I tend to take what happened as a direct "effect" and then shift that round to the "cause" position in the equation. Means you have the QED factor built in.
This is why the insurance scam thing surprises me - it looks like they went to a lot of effort to produce this and if the best conclusion they could come up with was a fkin remake of the titanic conspiracy then it's a bit of a shame IMO
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Quote from: Faust on February 24, 2009, 03:15:45 PM
To be fair, When I first heard the attacks being reported they listed the fourth flight (flight 92) as having been shot down.
(which makes sense to me, if they knew the plane was jacked it seems like a plausable solution).
Only later did they change it to the flight was braught down by someone on board.
This always seemed to me to be that the gov was just trying to save face rather then admit they had to shoot down the plane.
that would be a reasonable hypothesis, but nearly everyone on flight 92 made a cell phone call to loved ones informing them of the situation and letting them know that they were going to take the plane and/or force it down rather than let it be used as a weapon. So the government would have to have somehow convinced ALL of them to lie to the rest of the world and say that "yeah, we did get a call from so and so..."
also, IIRC, Todd Beamer's family actually recorded his call to them, including his goodbye and the now-famous "let's roll" quote.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Dude, srsly, let it lie.
1) I don't believe in loose change, op was tongue in cheek - hence the "before I become a believer" part.
2) I'd believe bush did it himself, with his bare hands, before I'd believe that ridiculous shit which you have a thread devoted to already. Pls to keep your hosries the fuck out of my thread.
kthnx
Quote from: Dirtytime on February 24, 2009, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: Faust on February 24, 2009, 03:15:45 PM
To be fair, When I first heard the attacks being reported they listed the fourth flight (flight 92) as having been shot down.
(which makes sense to me, if they knew the plane was jacked it seems like a plausable solution).
Only later did they change it to the flight was braught down by someone on board.
This always seemed to me to be that the gov was just trying to save face rather then admit they had to shoot down the plane.
that would be a reasonable hypothesis, but nearly everyone on flight 92 made a cell phone call to loved ones informing them of the situation and letting them know that they were going to take the plane and/or force it down rather than let it be used as a weapon. So the government would have to have somehow convinced ALL of them to lie to the rest of the world and say that "yeah, we did get a call from so and so..."
also, IIRC, Todd Beamer's family actually recorded his call to them, including his goodbye and the now-famous "let's roll" quote.
Isn't it possible both scenarios happened? The passengers attempted to take down the plane themselves, but at -or around- the same time the government shot it out of the sky?
I suppose it is. I'm not sure what difference it would make.
also, the plane crashed in a cornfield. there were plenty of civilian witnesses on the scene within minutes and as far as I know, the wreckage of the plane looked exactly like it would if the plane had crashed, as opposed to being blown apart in mid-air.
also also, I can't imagine why anyone would have blamed the feds for shooting that plane down so I see no reason for that particular cover-up.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Dude, srsly, let it lie.
1) I don't believe in loose change, op was tongue in cheek - hence the "before I become a believer" part.
2) I'd believe bush did it himself, with his bare hands, before I'd believe that ridiculous shit which you have a thread devoted to already. Pls to keep your hosries the fuck out of my thread.
kthnx
:hosrie:
:D
The conspiracy is actually that the government is behind the Truthers.
Here's the way 9/11 went down:
1) Months in advance, AQ starts planning.
2) At some point US Intel gets wind of the plot, but not the specifics.
3) For whatever reason, (hubris?) neither Clinton or Bush recoginize the seriousness of the situation.
4) The Shit Hits The Towers
5) Unable to admit that it screwed the Pooch, the Bush administration drops a few psyops people off at an Internet Cafe where they start the Truther movement to distract the conspiracy theorists and make any claims about the nature of events appear as crazy conspiracy theories.
now THAT is a conspiracy theory I can get behind.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2009, 05:39:59 PM
The conspiracy is actually that the government is behind the Truthers.
Here's the way 9/11 went down:
1) Months in advance, AQ starts planning.
2) At some point US Intel gets wind of the plot, but not the specifics.
3) For whatever reason, (hubris?) neither Clinton or Bush recoginize the seriousness of the situation.
4) The Shit Hits The Towers
5) Unable to admit that it screwed the Pooch, the Bush administration drops a few psyops people off at an Internet Cafe where they start the Truther movement to distract the conspiracy theorists and make any claims about the nature of events appear as crazy conspiracy theories.
this is the proper use of disinformation, make any conspiracy look so stupid all conspiracy's including what really went down look dumb and easy to dismiss
Quote from: fomenter on February 24, 2009, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2009, 05:39:59 PM
The conspiracy is actually that the government is behind the Truthers.
Here's the way 9/11 went down:
1) Months in advance, AQ starts planning.
2) At some point US Intel gets wind of the plot, but not the specifics.
3) For whatever reason, (hubris?) neither Clinton or Bush recoginize the seriousness of the situation.
4) The Shit Hits The Towers
5) Unable to admit that it screwed the Pooch, the Bush administration drops a few psyops people off at an Internet Cafe where they start the Truther movement to distract the conspiracy theorists and make any claims about the nature of events appear as crazy conspiracy theories.
this is the proper use of disinformation, make any conspiracy look so stupid all conspiracy's including what really went down look dumb and easy to dismiss
Which is why "Everything Is Under Control" should be required reading... along with 'The Prince'. ;-)
(http://i40.tinypic.com/w8pzk4.jpg)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Dude, srsly, let it lie.
1) I don't believe in loose change, op was tongue in cheek - hence the "before I become a believer" part.
2) I'd believe bush did it himself, with his bare hands, before I'd believe that ridiculous shit which you have a thread devoted to already. Pls to keep your hosries the fuck out of my thread.
kthnx
Sorry, I couldn't help but :pokewithstick:, seriously, I was worried though you might actually be considering joiner the truthers, I needed a verbal equivalent for a slap for you.
Quote from: Dirtytime on February 24, 2009, 05:03:51 PM
I suppose it is. I'm not sure what difference it would make.
also, the plane crashed in a cornfield. there were plenty of civilian witnesses on the scene within minutes and as far as I know, the wreckage of the plane looked exactly like it would if the plane had crashed, as opposed to being blown apart in mid-air.
also also, I can't imagine why anyone would have blamed the feds for shooting that plane down so I see no reason for that particular cover-up.
I'm not saying I believe it, I just remember it being reported as shot down in the confusion
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Please don't tell me you think hibernation could allow that kid to go without water for a year. Hibernation is a not a lossless energy system.
Quote from: Faust on February 25, 2009, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Please don't tell me you think hibernation could allow that kid to go without water for a year. Hibernation is a not a lossless energy system.
Once again, let me just make my stance on the whole issue clear: I don't "believe" anything atm in regards to the "buddha boy", I find the story fascinating and want to know what exactly is going on.
Anyway, Pent doesn't want me bring this shit up in his precious thread so I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 25, 2009, 01:25:07 AM
Quote from: Faust on February 25, 2009, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Please don't tell me you think hibernation could allow that kid to go without water for a year. Hibernation is a not a lossless energy system.
Once again, let me just make my stance on the whole issue clear: I don't "believe" anything atm in regards to the "buddha boy", I find the story fascinating and want to know what exactly is going on.
Anyway, Pent doesn't want me bring this shit up in his precious thread so I'll leave it at that.
I said think, you said "dumb enough to not believe". Finding out whats going on doesn't include whether or not that kid or anyone alive in the last year has ingested water.
Quote from: Faust on February 25, 2009, 01:28:47 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 25, 2009, 01:25:07 AM
Quote from: Faust on February 25, 2009, 01:21:00 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 04:06:31 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on February 24, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 24, 2009, 02:47:09 PM
So I started watching Loose Change last night and, as expected, it reeked of classic conspiracy theory, right down to the adenoidal voice of the presenter. I've heard Cain slag off the "truther" movement in general and (iirc) this movie in particular. One problem - and from a layman's pov (I've never looked into any of this) a lot of fucking convincing arguments.
If the documents shown were made up? If the experts opinions were not from real experts? If it wasn't for the fact that most of the people refuting these claims are bloody politicians then maybe I would have a harder time believing this shit but, as it stands, I'm seeing no real holes in their story.
Please to poke some before I become a believer. :x
You know, theres also this kid that doesn't need food or water and just sits around all day.
Yeah but I have things like Classic Newtonian Physics to refute that one with. Apparently the two towers actually did fall down :lulz:
I'm saying, if you're dumb enough to actually believe loose change, I think you'd be dumb enough to not believe that someone can't hibernate.
Please don't tell me you think hibernation could allow that kid to go without water for a year. Hibernation is a not a lossless energy system.
Once again, let me just make my stance on the whole issue clear: I don't "believe" anything atm in regards to the "buddha boy", I find the story fascinating and want to know what exactly is going on.
Anyway, Pent doesn't want me bring this shit up in his precious thread so I'll leave it at that.
I said think, you said "dumb enough to not believe". Finding out whats going on doesn't include whether or not that kid or anyone alive in the last year has ingested water.
Ok, once again: I was poking/having a go at Pent. I was saying, if you're going to believe in what loose change has to say, you mighty as well start believing buddha boy is the real deal as well.
I'm remaining skeptic, both of his supposed abilities and that hes a fraud.
I'm just looking for answers here.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 24, 2009, 05:39:59 PM
The conspiracy is actually that the government is behind the Truthers.
Here's the way 9/11 went down:
1) Months in advance, AQ starts planning.
2) At some point US Intel gets wind of the plot, but not the specifics.
3) For whatever reason, (hubris?) neither Clinton or Bush recoginize the seriousness of the situation.
4) The Shit Hits The Towers
5) Unable to admit that it screwed the Pooch, the Bush administration drops a few psyops people off at an Internet Cafe where they start the Truther movement to distract the conspiracy theorists and make any claims about the nature of events appear as crazy conspiracy theories.
Genius! I'm switching to this one until further notice. Was a friend of a friend who recommended LC was "pretty convincing"
Wait til he hears teh troof :lulz:
I'd like to point out many prominent Truthers have longstanding associations with Lyndon LaRouche's NCLC, if they were not in fact explicit members. The NCLC has longstanding links with the US intelligence community.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc2.html
QuoteIn a sense LaRouche is a "Silicon Caesar" since he has risen to power through a sophisticated computerized telecommunications network which gathers political and economic intelligence and then packages it for dissemination through newsletters, magazines, special reports and consulting services. Former Reagan advisor and National Security Council senior analyst, Dr. Norman Bailey, told NBC reporter Pat Lynch the LaRouche network was "one of the best private intelligence services in the world."
Not everyone shares the view. When Henry Kissinger was told of how LaRouche operatives met with high Reagan Administration officials in the early 1980's, he told the New Republic, "If this is true, it would be outrageous, stupid, and nearly unforgivable." Dennis King, co-author of the New Republic article which examined LaRouche's influence in scientific and intelligence circles, says during the first Reagan term LaRouche aides managed to gain "access to an alarming array of influential persons in government, law enforcement, scientific research and private industry." These ties form the basis of the LaRouche "CIA defense" against the charges he conspired to obstruct justice. LaRouche claims he believed his security aide Roy Frankhauser, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and government law enforcement informant, was a covert conduit to the CIA.
John Rees, an ultra-conservative whose Information Digest newsletter reports on political extremes on the left and right, says he "believes the New Republic story that LaRouche staffers had access to a lot of people." But he points out, "If you have all the electronic resources and information-gathering staff that LaRouche possesses you are bound to come up with occasional gems, that's what most people were interested in, not the LaRouche philosophy." Both King and Rees feel the Reagan Administration consciously began distancing itself from contacts with the LaRouche network following the New Republic and NBC stories.
Russ Bellant, a long-time LaRouche watcher from Detroit, notes that in the mid-1970's LaRouche simultaneously turned to the right and tried to link up with more respectable groups, including, for a brief period, several state Republican Party organizations. "Some tactical political alliances with various right-wing groups were made on the basis of LaRouche's scurrilous disruption campaigns against mutual enemies, especially liberal Democrats," says Bellant. In fact, LaRouche has consistently targeted the American left, and done so with material and moral support from small but significant elements in law enforcement, the Republican Party and the American far right. There is also evidence to suggest that the LaRouche organization maintained a cozy relationship with certain elements in U.S. and foreign intelligence, military and police agencies.
Its not hard to do the math.
Quote from: Cain on February 25, 2009, 10:13:15 AM
I'd like to point out many prominent Truthers have longstanding associations with Lyndon LaRouche's NCLC, if they were not in fact explicit members. The NCLC has longstanding links with the US intelligence community.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc2.html
QuoteIn a sense LaRouche is a "Silicon Caesar" since he has risen to power through a sophisticated computerized telecommunications network which gathers political and economic intelligence and then packages it for dissemination through newsletters, magazines, special reports and consulting services. Former Reagan advisor and National Security Council senior analyst, Dr. Norman Bailey, told NBC reporter Pat Lynch the LaRouche network was "one of the best private intelligence services in the world."
Not everyone shares the view. When Henry Kissinger was told of how LaRouche operatives met with high Reagan Administration officials in the early 1980's, he told the New Republic, "If this is true, it would be outrageous, stupid, and nearly unforgivable." Dennis King, co-author of the New Republic article which examined LaRouche's influence in scientific and intelligence circles, says during the first Reagan term LaRouche aides managed to gain "access to an alarming array of influential persons in government, law enforcement, scientific research and private industry." These ties form the basis of the LaRouche "CIA defense" against the charges he conspired to obstruct justice. LaRouche claims he believed his security aide Roy Frankhauser, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and government law enforcement informant, was a covert conduit to the CIA.
John Rees, an ultra-conservative whose Information Digest newsletter reports on political extremes on the left and right, says he "believes the New Republic story that LaRouche staffers had access to a lot of people." But he points out, "If you have all the electronic resources and information-gathering staff that LaRouche possesses you are bound to come up with occasional gems, that's what most people were interested in, not the LaRouche philosophy." Both King and Rees feel the Reagan Administration consciously began distancing itself from contacts with the LaRouche network following the New Republic and NBC stories.
Russ Bellant, a long-time LaRouche watcher from Detroit, notes that in the mid-1970's LaRouche simultaneously turned to the right and tried to link up with more respectable groups, including, for a brief period, several state Republican Party organizations. "Some tactical political alliances with various right-wing groups were made on the basis of LaRouche's scurrilous disruption campaigns against mutual enemies, especially liberal Democrats," says Bellant. In fact, LaRouche has consistently targeted the American left, and done so with material and moral support from small but significant elements in law enforcement, the Republican Party and the American far right. There is also evidence to suggest that the LaRouche organization maintained a cozy relationship with certain elements in U.S. and foreign intelligence, military and police agencies.
Its not hard to do the math.
I love Lyndon LaRouche, and his political cult...
You know, I actually met one of them before I realised what they were.
Man the dude was pushy, and used a lot of "big words" to make me feel like an idiot.
He wanted me to sign up and shit, but I said I'd just read one of their papers and get back to them.
Then I looked them up and was like WTF LOL I *gotta* fuck with these dudes.
I think it was Cain who posted a brilliant discussion amongst the politician-guys about how they were planning 9/11 [or he quoted it from somewhere, I forgot]
http://www.alternet.org/story/85723/if_cheney_%26_co._had_really_plotted_the_9_11_attacks_.../
(the formatting is fucked up, though)
bit of google-fu, here's a version with non-fucked formattingP:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33511
I wept tears of pure lol :lulz:
Matt Taibbi is pretty much the true heir to reporters like H. L. Mencken (he gets the Hunter S Thompson comparison all the time, but I know he's trying to be the modern day Sage of Baltimore)
Quote
My problem is that all the truther's conclusions seem to come down to an insurance money scam, don't they?
wut about the missing gold and the enron records?
i always thought it was BS till i saw "who killed John O'Neill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill)?"
you might better remember him better as the idiot who lost his briefcase full of classifed papers at a bar
and dont even get me started on that crosshair monument at the pentagon, FOX's lone gunmen pilot,
mysterious truckbomb stopped at a bridge checkpoint or the 3 j00 filmmakers arrested for cheering
Quoteblamed the feds for shooting that plane down so I see no reason for that particular cover-up.
depends if it was an order from higher up or someone knowing something is wrong and taking steps to counter it.
able danger or able warrior?
QuoteLaRouche
i think the only thing hes been right about was the great crash was going to start 2007
him and jones are probally apart of project mockingbird aka forced media influence
QuoteDick Cheney Conspiracy
TL;dr
did they at least talk about that guy that testified before congress that he was in the bunker, and heard the plane is x miles out.
DO THE ORDERS STILL STAND?
Quote from: Cain on February 27, 2009, 11:34:53 AM
Matt Taibbi is pretty much the true heir to reporters like H. L. Mencken (he gets the Hunter S Thompson comparison all the time, but I know he's trying to be the modern day Sage of Baltimore)
Thompson stated many times that Mencken was his greatest influence.
Just saying.