Alarming News

October 30, 2007

Be there

On November 7th (mark your calendars. No, seriously, go mark it, we’ll wait) I’m participating in a debate about whether the government knew in advance about 9/11. The debate starts at 8pm and the room is on the small side so be on time or risk not getting in.

My opponent, Sander Hicks, owns a cafe called Vox Pop in my childhood neighborhood and, as I’ve written before its existence riles me right up.

I’ve spent the last few weeks reading up on many different 9/11 conspiracy theories but realized that because most of them are such utter nonsense, and they don’t necessarily have anything in common with each other, I’d have to read Sander’s book to find out to which theory he subscribed.

Last week, my friend M offered to drive me to Vox Pop to purchase the book. He was living up the block when the cafe opened and, though moderate-to-liberal in his political beliefs, felt much like I did about the propagandist cafe. “We’ll go buy the book holding coffee we bought across the street.”

We didn’t get a chance to go that night so last Friday I swung by Vox Pop and bought the book. And now that I’ve spent $14 on a book I’m already finding ridiculous, I expect each and every one of you to show up and watch the show.

Posted by Karol at 02:56 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Oh, yeah, taunt all of us outside of the NYC area with this post why don’t you. If there’s one thing that might make me be willing to reenter the Five Boroughs of Hell it’d be watching a Troofer Smackdown.
Knock ‘em dead, good luck.

Posted by: James at October 30, 2007 at 10:17 am

You gave money to that guy?

Posted by: Marco at October 30, 2007 at 10:28 am

I wouldn’t worry, Marco. Winter is coming. That book is good kindling.
Hope this ends up on YouTube.

Posted by: Shawn at October 30, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Youtube? Hell, I hope it ends on on Fox News!

Posted by: James at October 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Make sure you brush up on Daniel Pipes, Conspiracy:How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, and also The Hidden Hand. Excellent analysis of conspiracy theories and why they occur.
PLEASE ask your opponent this: why, instead of searching for a smoking gun hidden in the bowels of the US government that he hopes will be revealed to a coffee shop owner (himself), why does he not examine another ‘official’ story–that Islamic-supremacists, who vow each and every day to kill us all, might just be telling the truth about the religious reasons behind their terrorism? Is that subject too hard to tackle? Would it involve a greater knowledge of history, foreign languages, and political movements? What gives? Hicks makes virtually no mention of Islamo-facism, seems to have a very poor grasp on Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-qaeda, its just astounding. He has delusions of grandeur that he will ferret out ‘the truth.’ He must have computer access, has he not seen television in the Arab world, or read their newspapers, or listened to their leaders? Or is all the hatred of the west just part of the conspiracy?

Posted by: Lee Harvey Oswald at October 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm

So I started reading the book and the Forward is just awesome. Apparently, the conspiracy theorists that don’t believe in this particular conspiracy theory are likely part of the conspiracy.

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2007 at 3:16 pm

You’ll find it hard to figure out just what it is that Sander believes in from the book. One consistent problem with Hicks is that he falls for con-men, from Hatfill to Vreeland to the ridiculous Leo Wanta.

Posted by: Brainster at October 30, 2007 at 4:21 pm

9/11 has to many coincidences to all be coincidences. Review the evidence, it was an inside job:
250+ 9/11 ‘Smoking Guns’ Found in the Mainstream Media

Posted by: Killtown at October 30, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Why do we know more about sports than we know about the hundreds of dead and the tens of thousands of dying 9/11 First Responders?
Why do we know more about celebrity than we know about the 70% of victims family members questions that were never answered during the 9/11

Posted by: A1A Architect at October 30, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Why do we know more about sports than we know about the hundreds of dead and the tens of thousands of dying 9/11 First Responders?
Probably because most fans spend their lives following their favorite sports. Now, if knowing their names was really important to you then why didn’t you post their names instead of the list of whack-job web sites?
Why do we know more about celebrity than we know about the 70% of victims family members questions that were never answered during the 9/11

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at October 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Dispense with the usual Lolita debate chumminess and take him down!
http://www.forgotten-ny.com

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at October 30, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Good luck Karol. You’re going to need it. ;)

Posted by: Jon Gold at October 31, 2007 at 7:17 am

I’m sorry, Mr. Troofer (A1A Architect), but I’m afraid that you’ve tripped my “this guy is an idiot” circuit in three ways:
1.) What control system would you, as an evil government, trust to maneuver aircraft through crowded Manhattan airspace into the side of the building? Answer carefully, as I’m pretty sure that if you choose the wrong one, you and _everyone_ involved is getting the chair.
2.) What method of mind control are you using to keep, oh, roughly the 200+ people you would’ve needed to pull this off quiet? Or did you use cyborgs from the future?
3.) Where did you get your degree in physics from? Oh, wait, I’m sorry–do you _have_ a degree in physics? Because I’m seeing you make a lot of “physics” comments when just about every…single…one of them has been disproven. Repeatedly. Irrefutably.
4.) Have you handled explosives? Been around building demolition or people who do it for a living? If so, when did you receive your traumatic brain injury? If not (as I suspect), why do you persist in presenting an argument that multiple people who do these things for a living have not only laughed at, but say would be almost impossible to conduct?
5.) Finally, as someone who claims to have read the Constitution, what do you believe your obligations as a citizen are? Because having read it a few times myself, _I_ am of the opinion that if you truly believed our government murdered over 3,000 people that you shouldn’t be handing out pamphlets, you should be handing out guns.
Now, given that I think you’re someone who gets off on being “anti-establishment” or “too cool for school,” I realize that course of action #5 may be a bit, shall we say, _difficult_ for you. At which point, my friend, we reach the real crux of the problem–that it’s hard to take seriously your claim that an all-knowing, all-seeing government was able to pull off mass murder when they can’t even permanently shut up a few hundred loudmouthed, weak-kneed wannabe patriots. Then again, idiots are like weeds…and maybe the government’s just out of Round Up.

Posted by: James at October 31, 2007 at 8:04 am

I’m sorry, Mr. Troofer (A1A Architect), but I’m afraid that you’ve tripped my “this guy is an idiot” circuit in several ways:
1.) What control system would you, as an evil government, trust to maneuver aircraft through crowded Manhattan airspace into the side of the building? Answer carefully, as I’m pretty sure that if you choose the wrong one, you and _everyone_ involved is getting the chair.
2.) What method of mind control are you using to keep, oh, roughly the 200+ people you would’ve needed to pull this off quiet? Or did you use cyborgs from the future?
3.) Where did you get your degree in physics from? Oh, wait, I’m sorry–do you _have_ a degree in physics? Because I’m seeing you make a lot of “physics” comments when just about every…single…one of them has been disproven. Repeatedly. Irrefutably.
4.) Have you handled explosives? Been around building demolition or people who do it for a living? If so, when did you receive your traumatic brain injury? If not (as I suspect), why do you persist in presenting an argument that multiple people who do these things for a living have not only laughed at, but say would be almost impossible to conduct?
5.) Finally, as someone who claims to have read the Constitution, what do you believe your obligations as a citizen are? Because having read it a few times myself, _I_ am of the opinion that if you truly believed our government murdered over 3,000 people that you shouldn’t be handing out pamphlets, you should be handing out guns.
Now, given that I think you’re someone who gets off on being “anti-establishment” or “too cool for school,” I realize that course of action #5 may be a bit, shall we say, _difficult_ for you. At which point, my friend, we reach the real crux of the problem–that it’s hard to take seriously your claim that an all-knowing, all-seeing government was able to pull off mass murder when they can’t even permanently shut up a few hundred loudmouthed, weak-kneed wannabe patriots. Then again, idiots are like weeds…and maybe the government’s just out of Round Up.

Posted by: James at October 31, 2007 at 8:05 am

Hoo boy! It looks like a sidewalk after a good rainstorm.

Posted by: Shawn at October 31, 2007 at 9:28 am

The terrible acts of 9/11 and the events leading up to them deserve a thorough, independent, unimpeachable, and complete investigation.
Read what Survivors, Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, Family Members, Professors, other Engineers and Architects, Pilots and Aviation Professionals have to say about 9/11 here:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Just one month ago, seven CIA veterans denounced the official account of 9/11 as: “a joke”, “a coverup”, “a monstrous series of lies”, “a pretext for war”, “not a serious piece of analysis”, riddled with “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws.”
Critical Thinking is obviously lacking in this little sphere of callousness masquerading as a blog.
Th Laws of Physics do not lie. What doesn’t one understand when the agency tasked with explaining the demolition of the towers says:
“We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
Here are more facts the 9/11 omission report never touched upon:
1) The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
It is commonly known that the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, but did you know that a third World Trade Center high-rise building also fell that day?
WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition.
It fell suddenly, straight down, at near freefall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings.
These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7’s collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions.
Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they “pull” WTC 7.
“Pull” is an industry term that means “demolish,” but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions.
Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7’s remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report.
2) Fire has never

Posted by: Professional Engineer at October 31, 2007 at 12:39 pm

So, if it gets held up at the first stage, I guess it’s not a truth then.

Posted by: Shawn at October 31, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Another book to read thats awesome in its own right, but also sheds lots of light on why certain people NEED a ‘truth’ cause is Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer”. One of the best books of the 20th century IMO.
FWIW, I couldnt do this debate myself. I’d go straight to “I’m sorry but you are @#$#(*@ idiot and need to get a life”

Posted by: GILMORE at October 31, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I think the debate needs to be done because these idiots are dangerous. Remember, it wasn’t the Bolsheviks that got the Russian Revolution started–and they started really, really early.
Ideas have a momentum of their own and when you start letting people speak this poison unchallenged in the public square, it starts to lead to bad things. See the growing number of people who are starting to agree at least in part with this line of trash and you’ll understand why someone has to go into the idiots’ den.
It’s not the fools people should be worried about–it’s the potential fellow travelers that empower the fools.

Posted by: James at October 31, 2007 at 5:20 pm

That’s it, keep ridiculing the likes of Navy

Posted by: Zogby at November 1, 2007 at 8:02 am

Sorry, but when for every official you trot out there are 10 who tell the actual truth. You know, that a bunch of Islamic terrorists, using a combination of skill, luck, and American complacency pulled off a stunning attack.
Call me callous, but I say again: If you _truly_ believe what you’re saying, then your choices are clear. That you continue to bleat this line of BS yet refuse to accept when people present, you know, _FACTS_ to refute your line of argument says all about your character that I need to hear. All your polls indicate is that, yes, people need to start shouting you down as often as possible in the public square.
When you answer these simple questions irrefutably I’ll start to think you’re even worth wasting time on.
1.) What control system was used for these allegedly “dummy” aircrart on 9/11? (Please, oh please, don’t start the BS about “it was a cruise missile”–you _will_ be embarrassed.)
2.) If you believe this is some vast conspiracy, how has the government kept it quiet if it involves more than three people (i.e., how do you beat the Benjamin Franklin rule)?
3.) How do the “conspirators” ensure that more of the hijackers aren’t stopped without falling afoul of #2?
4.) Finally, how do you explain the obvious shortfall in “risk versus reward” inherent in this scenario?
5.) Would you believe this line of tripe if the sitting President was, say, FDR?
So far I haven’t heard a Troofer answer those four questions in a simple, intelligent, and coherent manner. Oh, I’ve heard lots of foot stomping and whining reminiscent of a toddler’s best efforts, but nothing that indicates clear, rational assessment or a willingness to listen.
Free speech has consequences, and I think the poll demonstrates them.

Posted by: James at November 1, 2007 at 9:46 am

The 911truth.org

Posted by: Shawn at November 1, 2007 at 11:10 am

Or how something that’s been “explained” several times is still “unexplained.” Maybe I need to put this in language the Troofers can understand:
Okay kiddies, when big airplane goes SWOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH, BANG! into really big building, it scatters pieces everywhere. These pieces are hot, like the stove you probably kept touching as a child. They fall for a really, really long time. When they hit the building, they’re going really, really fast, like you did when you were on your tricycle and skinned your knee.
Now, if you had demonstrated you understood physics, I’d call this kinetic energy, but that’s using big person words–and you have shown you’re not ready to leave the kiddie table yet. This energy lets the big pieces punch through the roof, like when you get hit by your big brother but many, many times harder. Now, these pieces, hot like the stove, find things to burn, like the paper in your coloring book.
Remember what you’re supposed to do when there’s a fire? Yes, you get out of the building until the firemen come. Well, the people in this building were smart, they got out. Unfortunately, all the firemen were up in the tall towers where the bad men had crashed the airplanes. That means the fire got to burn a while. Well, a long time ago someone thought it would be a good idea to have an emergency command post next to the number one target for the bad men. Wait, I lost you at emergency command post, didn’t I?
Okay, fine, some people who thought they were being smart decided to put some diesel fuel in the building that caught fire. You know, diesel, makes the big trucks go Vroom, Vroom!? Yes, well, that diesel caught fire and, since the firefighters were busy being heroes in the tall buildings, that only made a bad situation worse. Then the tall buildings came down and made things about as bad as they could be. Eventually, the building just couldn’t take anymore and, so, it fell down. Fire does that sometimes, especially when the diesel starts to burn.
So, there, you guys can officially no longer say WT7 is unexplained. That is, unless I need to do an interpretive dance and bring demonstrations because you can’t understand simple, 5th grade level English.

Posted by: James at November 1, 2007 at 11:56 am

Feeble minds make stuff up.
The 9/11 myth believers, while trying to defend the lies our govt. told us, tell a story about building 7 that the govt. hasn’t even come up with yet.
The NIST said: “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
Now why isn’t the reality deniers on this blog sending their explanations of the demolition of building 7 to the NIST?
It is OK to question and think critically. It is OK to listen to what the people WHO WERE THERE experienced.
The name and rank of the following witness to history on 9/11: CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46
This eyewitness, which the closed-minded keyboardists will most likely try to deny, was there on 9/11:
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46 QUOTE:

Posted by: FDNY at November 1, 2007 at 12:51 pm

You know, there were eyewitnesses at Pearl Harbor who swore that the Vals were Stukas and that they saw Caucasian pilots at the sticks of the Kates. The phenomenon of stress and shock making people fill in the lines are well documented whether you consider 9/11 a combat situation, aviation accident, or delusional fantasy that the rest of us are apparently living in.
You can put all the all-caps eyewitness accounts up you want, but some of us got to see things live on TV. There’s also audio from _inside_ the building that has sounds consistent with collapse but _not_ consistent with demolition. Sorry geniuses, but if most of us saw it live on TV, it’s going to be a bit hard to convince us to trust your beliefs rather than our own eyes.
Screaming something at the top of your lungs repeatedly doesn’t make it true–it just eventually makes you hoarse. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to work with typing. Pity.
Still notice none of you Troofers can answer my simple questions. Cat got your tongues, you just stuck on stupid, or hoping that if you continue to make our ears bleed with constant bombardments of quote and cherry-picked accounts we’ll eventually submit?
As to your NIST report, it’s due out at the end of the year, which makes it maybe 6-8 months overdue. Not to mention, if you’ve ever done an investigation or report in your life, you’d recognize that phrase for what it is. Here, let me put it in a different way for you using a context that’s appropriate given the likelihood of _your_ claims: “We cannot fully explain how those presents got there, but we’re fairly certain that Mom and Dad put them together after the kids went to bed without the help of some overweight guy in a red suit.”

Posted by: James at November 1, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Feeble minds make stuff up.

So what you’re telling me is that George Lucas, Edgar Allan Poe, Michelangelo, F. Scott Fitzgerald, David Lynch, Mozart, Jon Schaffer and Vincent Gallo, just to name a few, are all feeble-minded?

Posted by: Shawn at November 1, 2007 at 2:24 pm

‘The hijackers were patsies and Osama bin Laden was set up’
Bobby McIlvaine, 26, worked for Merrill Lynch and was on the 103rd floor of the south tower when the plane struck. His father, Bob, lives in Oreland, near Philadelphia
Three months ago, Bob McIlvaine was pulled over in his home town of Oreland, near Philadelphia, for driving through a red light. Instead of apologising to the police officer, he went nuts. “I totally blew up, I threw al my papers in his face and called him Mickey Mouse and an asshole.”
Bob, a former school teacher, recognises he has anger problems and also knows where they come from. On 9/11, he lost his son, 26- year-old Bobby, who had just begun working for the media department of Merrill Lynch and who was heading to a seminar on the 103rd floor of the south tower when the planes struck. And he is certain that criminals within the US government were responsible, not Osama bin Laden.
For the first few years, after the terror attack, Bob, 61, dedicated himself to anti-war groups that sprung up in its wake. He joined protesters pushing a massive stone dedicated to world peace down the highways of New England to New York and, last year, from Nagasaki to Hiroshima.
Today, he has withdrawn from those groups, however, to concentrate on a project he expects to take up the rest of his life: documenting and writing about the conspiracy that he believes was really responsible for the felling of the twin towers.
“I spend al my time researching 9/11,” he admits. “Today, there are no ifs or buts in my mind that this was an inside job. The US government orchestrated it with the help of MI6 and Pakistan and Mossad. What they are telling us is bullshit. The hijackers were patsies and Osama bin Laden was set up.”
He has no choice to continue with his quest for what he believes is the truth, he explains. ” I feel empowered, now that I have some better understanding of what happened. My son was murdered and there is no plausibility to what they say.”
But for al his focus on research, Bob is still far away from coming to terms with what happened. Losing his temper quickly is one symptom. “I will never be at peace. The pain never, never goes away, but the suffering isn’t as bad.”
But at least there is some perspective these days around the grief. “My wife, Helen, and I do more things nowadays and there are other problems to attend to. And we talk and laugh about Bobby now. That is something.”
The family also organised a get-together for his grandmother, the first time that al her grandchildren had ever been together in one place.
Rob, an active Christian, plans to go to Coventry Cathedral on the anniversary. However, he has not been able to follow al the church’s teachings. “The biggest thing for me is that God says you have to pray for your enemies and forgive them. That’s not something that I can do. I’ve tried to understand what these people did and why, but I haven’t been able to totally forgive them. But part of me wants to get there.
“I don’t want to live with bitterness. It’s that kind of thing that causes tragedies like 9/11.”
Bobby McIlvaine, 26, worked for Merrill Lynch and was on the 103rd floor of the south tower when the plane struck. His father, Bob, lives in Oreland, near Philadelphia
Three months ago, Bob McIlvaine was pulled over in his home town of Oreland, near Philadelphia, for driving through a red light. Instead of apologising to the police officer, he went nuts. “I totally blew up, I threw al my papers in his face and called him Mickey Mouse and an asshole.”
Bob, a former school teacher, recognises he has anger problems and also knows where they come from. On 9/11, he lost his son, 26- year-old Bobby, who had just begun working for the media department of Merrill Lynch and who was heading to a seminar on the 103rd floor of the south tower when the planes struck. And he is certain that criminals within the US government were responsible, not Osama bin Laden.
For the first few years, after the terror attack, Bob, 61, dedicated himself to anti-war groups that sprung up in its wake. He joined protesters pushing a massive stone dedicated to world peace down the highways of New England to New York and, last year, from Nagasaki to Hiroshima.
Today, he has withdrawn from those groups, however, to concentrate on a project he expects to take up the rest of his life: documenting and writing about the conspiracy that he believes was really responsible for the felling of the twin towers.
“I spend al my time researching 9/11,” he admits. “Today, there are no ifs or buts in my mind that this was an inside job. The US government orchestrated it with the help of MI6 and Pakistan and Mossad. What they are telling us is bullshit. The hijackers were patsies and Osama bin Laden was set up.”
He has no choice to continue with his quest for what he believes is the truth, he explains. ” I feel empowered, now that I have some better understanding of what happened. My son was murdered and there is no plausibility to what they say.”
But for al his focus on research, Bob is still far away from coming to terms with what happened. Losing his temper quickly is one symptom. “I will never be at peace. The pain never, never goes away, but the suffering isn’t as bad.”
But at least there is some perspective these days around the grief. “My wife, Helen, and I do more things nowadays and there are other problems to attend to. And we talk and laugh about Bobby now. That is something.”
Copyright 2006 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

Posted by: Researcher at November 5, 2007 at 11:32 am

They’re called hyperlinks. You use hyperlinks to, you guessed it, link to a particular article. This way, you don’t embarrass yourself by posting the article twice in the same comment.

Posted by: Shawn at November 5, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Post a comment