Thread: San Fran Republican Party cancels straw poll

Shapka wrote:

I don't know why you care, but you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't expend three times the effort composing logically incoherent replies to my comments

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

Sorrry to inform you, but over 70% of Americans believe that they have not been given the whole truth about 9/11.

Where did that 70% number come from? I've never heard such a figure quoted before. Perhaps this will clear up any confusion or questions you have regarding the 9/11 tragedy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly.

Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone.

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin.â€

"Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
By Michael Shermer

BRAD HINES

Devoted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore�wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor�like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites.

In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 0&colID=13

IMO, it's absolutely ludicrous to think our government participated in 9/11. However, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Plus, supporters can do whatever they want. If Romney followers can go, so can Ron Paul. Yes...

Unfortunately, they have enough residual intelligence to recognize the distinction between a meaningless fundraiser and an actual primary. You know, where real votes-which aren't purchased beforehand-are tallied in order to determine the winner thereof.

When you are ready to make a point, let me know.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Why do I care what you think?

I don't know why you care, but you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't expend three times the effort composing logically incoherent replies to my comments, now would you, Gomer McCrockpot?

Not really, debunking persons like you is rather easy and effortless. It never fails that you come a' running whenever there is a Ron Paul post.
Trust me, you are no threat. There is nothing unique nor 'factual' about anything you post. I seen it before on townhall, wonkette and other "special interest" controlled bastions. If Ron Paul was for the war and free 'billions' in handouts to "certain countries", you'd love him. I know it, and you know it. I understand where you are in your political maturity. I was exactly where you were about 7 months ago. Fully drinking from the 'neo-con' drinking fountain. You know, liberals who 'suddenly' became republican to faciliate their agendas.... Btw, why not stop posting to my posts - if I am such a "Gomer McCrockpot", why do you feel the need to insinuate yourself in discussions that I am in. Control. I get it now. Get lost.

Originally Posted by MW

"Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
By Michael Shermer

.....

MW, for every article you post - the truthers can post a debunk to your article, and vice-versa. Also, You might want to look up Mr. Shermer - he also wrote articles debunking christianity.

Mr. Shermer's job is to try a debunk all things. He is the founder of "skeptics society", so one would only have to see that when he writes - he is prone to to same biased and sensational facts to prove his points. Exactly the same way truthers use.

I can go either way. My point to my post above is that IF there was NO QUESTION about the validity of 9/11, there would be no questions.

MW, Do you believe that there is NOTHING 'questionable' about 9/11?

I mean, there is factual documentation to show that "some" did know and have advance factual warning that something was gonna go down. So, by not acting - one could even suggest that not acting is being complicit in the action. To what extent was 'this think' known.. well, that is something that will never be answered.



$62 Million and more spent by the GOP investigating Clinton's genitalia;

$3 Million spent by the GOP investigating 9-11.


***************************

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?


Oct. 2006 May 2002

Telling the truth


16% 21%

Hiding something


53% 65%

Mostly lying


28% 8%

Not sure


3% 6%

Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Folks, you need to settle down or this thread will be locked.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

When you are ready to make a point, let me know.

When you improve your reading comprehension, drop me a line.

Might I suggest a cursory run-through of those "Learn to Read" programs hosted by Wally Amos? They helped me a lot when I was tackling my grammar school English lessons.

Not really, debunking persons like you is rather easy and effortless. It never fails that you come a' running whenever there is a Ron Paul post.

I think this is the second or third Ron Paul-themed thread where I've posted several individual replies-at least, in response to your routine inanity-so I don't believe my interest borders on the obsessive, especially when contrasted with your habitual, formulaic Paulbot spam, which floods numerous sub-forums of this website, in case you haven't noticed.

There is nothing unique nor 'factual' about anything you post. I seen it before on townhall, wonkette and other "special interest" controlled bastions.

It's interesting that you've chosen to enclose those two words in quotation marks, essentially negating the meaning you intended to imply.

Tell me this, do you know what the term "fatuous" implies, just in order to satisfy my curiosity?

If Ron Paul was for the war and free 'billions' in handouts to "certain countries", you'd love him. I know it, and you know it.

Yes, undoubtedly.

You also know that the government stage-managed the annihilation of 3,000 of its own citizens in a conspiracy so nefarious that only the elect-such as yourself and a few thousand Alex Jones devotees and Oliver Stone epigones-are aware of their dastardly deeds.

Who I am to gainsay such wisdom?

I was exactly where you were about 7 months ago. Fully drinking from the 'neo-con' drinking fountain.

Wow.

A whole seven months of idelogical commitment.

Why hasn't Chronicles snapped you up?!

I do believe we have a budding Russell Kirk in our presence.

You know, liberals who 'suddenly' became republican to faciliate their agendas....

That's interesting, because I've never been a liberal-except in the classical liberal sense of the term, a la Emund Burke-and I didn't "suddenly" become a Republican, unless you consider someone who's been registered with that party since 1999-which was, coincidentally, the first year in which I was eligible to vote-to be a dilettante.

Btw, why not stop posting to my posts - if I am such a "Gomer McCrockpot", why do you feel the need to insinuate yourself in discussions that I am in. Control. I get it now. Get lost.

I have a better question, why do you feel compelled to berate and denounce anyone who doesn't share your Jim Jonish affinity for a particular presidential candidate?

Newsflash: You do not control the parameters of this website.

"Get lost."



But I repeat myself.