9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Multiply - WP

[greyl]

Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials.

But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists.

"They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," Berlet says over the phone. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet . That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

It's a pretty fair, sober, and inclusive overview, imo. I chose the quote above because I've referenced Chip Berlet's "Conspiracism as a Flawed Worldview" piece before, thanks to salvordin.

[FoxOnTheRun]

1. Nice Hitpiece

Then there's the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and United 93 did not crash in Shanksville, Pa. But, like, what happened to the passengers? (Among the passengers on Flight 77 was Barbara Olson, wife of former U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson).

Truth movement veterans distance themselves from Haupt, who has a bit of a temper. But Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist, also is a "no-planer."
"There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is."

But what about all those New Yorkers who saw airplanes hitting the twin towers? A chuckle rumbles down the phone line. "I don't believe anyone in Lower Manhattan," he says. "You hire three dozen Actors' Equity dudes and they'll say anything."

Oh boy, Reynolds.. why don't you believe the tooth ferry did it?

This is so obvious... and always the pentagon.. of course there is debris

Thank you General Electric...I wonder why they weren't reporting Charlie Sheens remarks or Alex Jones warnings in July 2001.

5 Ways News Editors Can Screw up an Article

1. Write a headline that misleads the reader so that they have no idea what the article is about.
2. Fail to spellcheck and grammar-check an article.
3. Fail to make sure that parts of the article don't get rearranged or cut out by accident when the article is layed out.
4. Always give greater coverage to sporting and music events than political events. Sports and entertainment ARE NOT news (although all mass media news is effectively entertainment, anymore).
5. Feel free to change the content of an article when you don't know the issue and without consulting the writer.

10 Ways Reporters Can Screw up an Article

1. Quote the clueless bystanders (the people with the least knowledge of the issue).
2. Pick the stupidest (or most sensational) thing each person says and quote it.
3. Quote only one person from "both" sides, assuming that there are only 2 sides to a given a story.
4. Quote someone with a financial interest in the issue and fail to expose how that interest biases their views.
5. Misrepresent the identity of people you're quoting.
6. Fail to check your facts or verify quotes.
7. Fail to tell people how they can get involved or learn more about an issue.
8. Claim to be "objective" and "unbiased" by knowing nothing about the issue (Ignorance reinforces mainstream values. When a reporter is ignorant of an issue, they can't tell if they're being misled.)
9. Report facts about an issue only as quoted opinions rather than standing behind the facts and printing them as such.
10. Show up late to the event and try to piece it together by asking whomever's left. (Leaving an event too early can be even worse.)

http://www.corporations.org/media/

well done.

[FoxOnTheRun]

3. I wonder what made him change his mind

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278&q=reynolds&hl=en

to this

"There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is."

But what about all those New Yorkers who saw airplanes hitting the twin towers? A chuckle rumbles down the phone line. "I don't believe anyone in Lower Manhattan," he says. "You hire three dozen Actors' Equity dudes and they'll say anything."

[treestar]

9. One of those Actors might have caved, though and in fact it would

be very likely a way for such an actor to get attention.

Though there is the framing analysis. If you are told the planes hit the towers and you were there, it does seem that the human mind might "construct" the planes.

I think this especially in relation to the Pentagon. Supposedly people saw it, but do they just "know" they saw it because they were there? If the plane was moving that fast, could they really have seen it at that level? Seems possible that it would all happen too quickly for the person on the street to see more than a blur, or to see it at all until it had already happened.

And for the Pentagon crash, the plane should be there. You should be able to see the thing sticking out of the building in the photos from right after the crash. The entire thing could have been reconstructed. They did that with a flight that blew up over the ocean, so surely they could have done it for the Pentagon plane.

The towers coming down has some suggestion, however faint, of the idea of destroying the evidence (the planes). Flight 93 should have been able to be found and pieced together, too. It was a crash on land, and the remains for crashes on land have been found before. Still the idea it was scattered everywhere might be believable, but it is Flight 77 that is most suspicious. The plane should be there. So it leaves you with this hint that the planes themselves contained some sort of evidence that might have undermined the official story.

[FoxOnTheRun]

14. The plane was flying at high speed prob. 500 mph

If it was 100mph I would agree that it should stick out

The only suspicions I have about 77 is why the new section of the pentagon and not Rumsfeld's office.
Why no air defense on the roof of the pentagon and why the FBI grabbed all surveillance tapes

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Where are the engines?

Boeing 757's and 767's have big engines. Each plane has two. That makes 8 engines that should be easy to positiviely ID.

Show me the beef?

[Nozebro]

24. Would you settle for another "LOOK. Another 9/11 Truth Seeker" post?

Engines, blood, guts, luggage, passenger seats, BODIES, and oh, did I mention things like airliner pieces like those fuselage panels that have four windows, that were planted (I mean FOUND) at the WTC. All we've seen from the Pentagon hoax is photo images of Gov't agents planting a few pieces of evidence on the Pentalawn.

If there are as many actual OCT'ers here as there are OCT'er usernames here, then we ought to hear from at least five or ten of 'em giving a substantive explanation for what's missing that ought not be.

Show ME the beef, too.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Not at all

Apparently you have a pair of eyes and you know how to use them. So many people are afraid to look.

[cal04]

2. here's the poll

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 3151 responses

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.
47%

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.
46%

I'm not sure.
6.7%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/

[JackRiddler]

19. What this poll proves...

In meaningless click polls, the Internet mob effect can often triumph over selectively framed questions and biased wording.

I'm not very impressed either way - and like a chump I even took a few seconds out of my glorious life to vote.

[greyl]

4. "salvorhardin", I meant to type. damn. nt

[FoxOnTheRun]

5. Have you seen the interview and compared to his qotes by msnbc?

I mean Morgan Reynolds

[greyl]

6. No, have you seen this from last month?

Check out Reynolds' VII. No Plane Theory section here.

and the DU thread:
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Smack Down Steven Jones

[FoxOnTheRun]

7. So what happened with him that that he made a 180 degree turn?

Watch it and say to me what is with that man.

You will only look at things that will prove your point.

[greyl]

8. Slow down.

I happen to be on dial-up and trying to download the 76mb al-jazeera video at the moment. It's not a resumable download, or else I'd pause it and watch this video you've posted.

Could you explain what the Reynolds video shows?

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. Sorry

there is a program called getright, it's pretty good for resume downloads.(But when the server doesn't support it it's probably useless too)

Do have a 56k modem?

There is no transcript, I remember he is talking about how the Bush administrations only goal were short sighted decisions to get reelected. No thinking about long term solutions for the future.
He names names, who was promoted etc and not demoted.
He mentions building 7 And how nobody can watch it without questions.

He does not claim to be an expert on planes or buildings. He mentions history and and is talking about the future war with Iran. He talks about the power structure, and how everybody knew in Washingto knew Iraq is a lie.


At the end he talks about the journalist he talked to and that they all know and can't write about it..

[greyl]

11. I don't understand where he changed his mind. ?

I usually use Free Download Manager for big resumable downloads, but the al-jeez vid is being downloaded via Firefox. Yes, I have a 56k modem, but I'm lucky to get 26.4k out here. About 10mb per hour ain't no fun, let me tell ya.

[FoxOnTheRun]

12. He now sounds like a nut

Before he sounded like reasonable man.

It doesn't makes sense to me, his quote in msnbc sounds like he is under pressure.


"There are no planes and I don't believe the people in New York", who writes this stuff?

[greyl]

13. He is either a nut or a sane disinfo agent.

Or a nutty disinfo agent.
You did read his own words(with j.w.) from last month at the link I posted above, right?
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones#NPT

[FoxOnTheRun]

15. He or the owner of this website

looks like a disinfo agent

[spooked911]

17. why couldn't he have done more research and changed his mind?

that's what happened with me.

I used to be one of the ignore physical evidence guys and then looking at the pohysical evidence I decided it is really really strange. So I became a no-planer like Reynolds.

Why don't you start by examining the flight 93 crash site:
http://flight93hoax.blogspot.com/2006/09/one-last-visit-to-flight-93-crash-site.html

[FoxOnTheRun]

21. He is an economist and criticizing an prof for physics, give me a break

Shanksville had an 8 mile debris field and was probably shot down. Or do you think a hologram fell from the sky.

I suppose it's money...."He writes articles what happens if we win", he is not as obvious, like Eric Hufschmidt.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Spooked911, I have heard and seen the photos from the pentagon, I've

seen the photo some guy posted here of the smoke plume in PA.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why would a false flag operation be run using no planes? How would that be more advantageous for the plotters than using planes? It seems to me that using planes would acomplish there plans without going to the time, effort and risk of pretending there were planes. I don't see the advantage from a plotters perspective.

[FoxOnTheRun]

29. Well

Some say it has been hastily done to kill the Naval intelligence working on the missing trillions from the pentagon

Some say it's a trap to stiffle any movement by showing real or manufactured tapes of a Boing hitting the Pentagon.

here is a interesting presentation about the pentagon by Fetzer

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3039081508414200211&q=fetzer+symposium&hl=en

I agree to maybe 97% but have look

[John Q. Citizen]

30. i'm downloading it now. But I'm talking not just the Pentagon here,

I'm talking also about those who suspect there were no planes at the towers.

[spooked911]

16. This is "sober"?

"For an hour he's shown videos of planes hitting the towers. If you note the glinting sunlight and angle of wings and you're honest about vectors and maybe the hashish is kicking in, you'll realize there were no planes ."

Yeah, and you're unbiased, "greyl".

;)

[greyl]

18. Yes, it's sober and hilarious.

The next line: "Truth movement veterans distance themselves from Haupt..."

[JackRiddler]

20. Sorry spooked...

On this one greyl has one of his few wins of the season. Nico is a complete clown, and the article does the sane people in the movement a big favor by making it clear that he does not speak for them.

[Norrin Radd]

22. So, by Berlet's reasoning,

we cannot accept the Defense Department's analysis of the footage of the Pentagon they released in May, because we viewed it on the Internet, as well?

[Nozebro]

25. "It's a pretty fair, sober, and inclusive overview, imo."

In the interest of fairness, wouldn't it be better to not post obvious right-wing propaganda hit pieces that might tickle OCT'ers but do violence to the very notion of objectivity and fair play?
After all, I assume you're here for the same reason the rest of us are.

[mhatrw]

28. "First they ignore you."

Nice to see that we've definitely gotten over that hump.

[Norrin Radd]

31. Great point! n/t