Van Jones Removed Because He Knew 9/11 Was Inside job?

[kerrywins]

as bad as Van Jones was....was he removed because of that belief?
they couldn't have that.


And what do you know...lo and behold, Obama had replaced him with someone who now says arrest anyone who talks about 9/11 being a conspiracy.
Investigate them...
wiretap them...
have surveillance on them...

ban free speech....

setup free speech zones.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?

Arrest anyone who talks about 9/11 being a conspiracy?

[BeFree]

2. Well

The whole WOT exists on the back of what happened on 9/11.

If it was proven to be an inside job, then the whole MIC would take a big hit and people's faith in the basics of our government would be shaken to the core.

Of course, that faith is now already shaken up pretty bad. So, they have to do what they can to keep it from just flat falling over. In a strange way, it is patriotic. Imagine what would happen if it became accepted knowledge that the whole WOT is a sham?

[SDuderstadt]

3. "If it was proven to be an inside job"

Let us know when you cross that threshold, dude. What are you waiting for?

[CJCRANE]

4. I think you're right. nt

[CJCRANE]

8. It's ironic that the US government

could have been decimated on 9/11 by neocon negligence (if United 93 had reached it's destination) but now they have to cover up that fact to preserve their credibility.

I also find it interesting that Gates recently revealed that they weren't looking for internal threats (re: Fort Hood mistakes), which shows a massive security blind spot during the Bush era. But of course this doesn't make sense because there was so much propaganda about sleeper agents and the need for warrantless wiretapping etc.

[Flatulo]

5. Do you have a link to any government officials going on the record

as proposing that CT'ers be arrested? Or even wiretapped?

[BeFree]

6. Yeah

It is entirely possible that we would be wiretapped, but never thought they'd
try to arrest us, so if there is a link... thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

7. In other words...

there's no proof for the OP, so truthers just substitute rank speculation. And you guys winder why you're held in contempt by many people.

[Kalun D]

9. Cass R Sunstein MIMC FASCIST

Sunstein paper

WND Article

"Conspiracy Theories"

"Cass R. Sunstein"
"Harvard University - Harvard Law School"

"January 15, 2008"

""Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined.....Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.""

so by Mr. Sunstein's reasoning we need to understand how to undermine the corrupt fascist government's 911 conspiracy theory. Then we should look at ways to implement "cognitive infiltration" of these extremists groups like the MIMC, CIA, Mossad etc.

wonder if this fascist pig Sunstein is a member of the death skulls? He sure does talk like them.

hey Mr Sunstein, you fascist piece of SH*T, what about all the conspiracy theories that turned out to be true?

[Kalun D]

10. another link

another link

LNR article

"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."

(ban conspiracy theorizing? Doesn't that usually lead to arrest? So there you have it SDude, in the guys very own words)

"Sunstein said government agents "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."

(this guy is a dunce, this is already happening in spades, LOLZ!!!!)

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

(yeah, you fascist pig, that's who you're defending, the MIMC death skull greed pigs)

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

-"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."

they're having to do a quick shell game, the name is changed to "climate change" because the earth is now cooling

-"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

well considering the CIA is the police arm of the global elite and Kennedy was threatening their FED bank with the return to the gold standard and threatening the CIA directly with disbandment, it's the strongest motive that exists.

-"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."

only 100 or so eyewitnesses evidence supressed

-"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."

duhhh

-"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."

he had succesfully enacted civil rights, his next target was the Vietnam war, the MIC can't stand for that.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Sorry, dude....

I have no interest in engaging with someone who tries to win debates by casually throwing around terms like "death skulls" and "fascist pigs" and, more importantly, who publicizes a company that puts out bumperstickers calling Obama "George W. Obama" and claims Obama is worse than Bush. I'm a Democrat, dude.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Dude....I owe you no explanation of my progressive credentials....

beyond that, the namecalling is a rhetorical trick in which someone tries to win the debate by using emotional language. Like I said, I'm not engaging with someone who employs such tactics, especially someone who publicizes a site that maintains Obama either equals W or is worse than W. Bye, dude.

[Kalun D]

21. glass house stone throwers

""the namecalling is a rhetorical trick in which someone tries to win the debate by using emotional language, Like I said, I'm not engaging with someone who employs such tactics""

Sdude has NEVER called any names, not ever ever ever

(LOLZ!)

""who publicizes a site that maintains Obama either equals W or is worse than W""

I was arguing that right here on DU about 10 months ago, got considerable resistance. At this point I'm getting considerable support.

the Obama MIMC fabrication is being exposed for what it is, a glorified television show, ask yourself, who OWNS the TV?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Okay, dude...

point to a single name I have ever called anyone. Take your time.

[Kalun D]

25. calling names

I was very careful to not call any names to anyone on DU of course, that's against the rules.

so you never maligned the opposition in general terms? Like just truthers?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Again, dude...

please point to any name I have ever called anyone. It's your claim, dude.

[duphase]

30. they're just trying to rattle your cage. don't sweat it. eom

[Kalun D]

22. didn't ask for an explanation

just a definition

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

19. "Obama is worse than Bush"...

I don't know about anyone else, but I've had enough. Bye, dude.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

14. WND? Yeah... good people to be relying on

:rofl:

[Kalun D]

15. Uhhh

did you not see the link to the CZAR'S own article/policy paper? Which WND linked directly in the first sentence of the article?

Or are you asleep or something?

[Ohio Joe]

28. Oh yeah, I saw it

But the interpretation you are relying on and the CT is from WND... WND? bwahahahahahahahahaha :rofl: It is an acasemic paper, not policy... oh noes, they are going to round up all the ct nuts and throw them in the fema death camps, oh noes... Seriously, you should start reading some better sites.

[Kalun D]

31. Reading

I'm reading what the Czar wrote, and you have no substantial comment on that of course.

It's an academic paper written by this Czar about what kind of policy he wants.

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.""

What does a ban mean O-Joe? Does it mean laws against it and punishment for speaking your mind?

How does that jive with the constitution and the bill or rights?

You have no substantial answer.

[Ohio Joe]

33. Since it is not reality, why would it need an answer?

No one is proposing this. No one is enacting this. No one is doing this. Reel in your paranoia and stop reading WND.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Does anyone have any idea....

what the fuck this poster is jabbering about?

[Ohio Joe]

29. As an atheist, I have to say

Thats the strangest crap I've ever read.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. "the name is changed to 'climate change' because the earth is now cooling"

You just might be on the wrong board -- or the wrong planet, for that matter.

[Kalun D]

12. Policy

It's a policy paper of Obama's chief regulatory czar

he say's he wants to ban conspiracy theorizing. Isn't banning followed by arrests?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.