Who The Hell is the Jackass on C-Span's Fascist Friday???

[leftchick]

This is so fucked up! Brian has reached a new low. Skeptic magazine? WTF is that? This asshole is ripping apart Paul Thompson and the Press for Truth dvd Brian is helping him right along. It is totally disgusting! :argh:

http://www.skeptic.com/


ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL
Friday, September 15
7am - Newspaper Articles & Viewer Calls
8am - Michael Shermer, Skeptic Magazine, Publisher | 9/11 Conspiracy Article
9am - Robert Novak, Syndicated Columnist | Columns
FRI. ON C-SPAN AT 7AM ET

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30#

[JHB]

1. Sorry you feel that way...

...but Shermer is no "fascist".

[acmejack]

3. He merely an asshole of extraordinary magnitude!

Or do you actually like this fool?

[The Magistrate]

80. He Puts Out An Excellent Magazine, Sir

And is a good man in my book. Admittedly, he is impatient with people who do not think clearly, and have no idea what consitutes fact or evidence.

"It's like fudge, only made of pigs!"

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Are you watching him?

He is making fun of people who are calling in and asking legitimate questions.

[leftchick]

9. I was referring to Brian Lamb

and his show on Fridys always cowtowing to our fascist regime. I thought that was well known here on DU. I was asking who Shermer was.

[acmejack]

2. We're bitching about him here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2141045

[leftchick]

7. well no wonder I didn't see it

it is in the dungeon. :eyes:

[EST]

4. He writes for Scientific American.

Reading a few of his columns would shed light on who he is.
He is also a huge bulwark against the creation science crazies.

[lapfog_1]

16. As may be... but his

"you can't have it both ways" argument is silly (Bush is stupid, incompetent.. and Bush is the mastermind
of the largest conspiracy on record).

Who, even among conspiracy nuts here (including me I suppose) EVER said that Bush was the mastermind of
the 9/11 plot (and, of course there was a 9/11 plot, we are just arguing over WHO the plotters were and what
was the extent of their plot).

As for the assertion that dozens to hundreds would have to be involved in a 9/11 PNAC plot... that is silly
on the face of it. At most, only a handful, perhaps 4 or 5, would have to be "in on it"... the rest are
simply following orders that seem reasonable... like the commanders of NORAD, the FAA and so on. If
Building 7 was "yanked", maybe a handful more. But not hundreds, not even dozens. Cheney could have done
most of it himself. Like ordering that there be a "hijack exercise" for the same day as 9/11, which
created confusion in the crucial moments after the hijacks were reported.

And why has ALL the evidence (from the ruble of the WTC) to the tapes from Air Traffic control, to the
surveillance camera footage that MUST have existed at the pentagon (you KNOW they had better surveillance
on that building and from that building than what we've been given... why has all of that simply disappeared?
One of the largest mass murders in the history of the United States, and nothing left for the CSI types to
examine? Bullshit.

[Ecumenist]

17. Hell, Lapfog...

The Grand Idiot doesn't have the mind to master anything, let alone a conspiracy. That's what the Spawn fron hell cabinet is for...

[lapfog_1]

24. So why is THIS asshat trying to make the case

That for their to have been a conspiracy on 9/11, Bush had to be the chief conspirator?

That's his argument (in a nutshell) as to why 9/11 can't be a conspiracy.

It's a specious argument since it assumes that the conspiracy theorists have postulated that Bush was the
"mastermind" while at the same time these same theorists complain about what an idiot bush is.

Nobody that I've read online or in any of the videos I've seen has postulated that Bush is even involved much
less the mastermind of such a plot. And it would be out of character for him to be involved...

at most, Bush is a tool of the real VRWC... and the PNAC is a subset of the VRWC.. and IF there is an
"operation northwood" plot surrounding 9/11, then the plotters are a small subset of the PNAC (and possibly
only peripherally associated with PNAC).

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I am sitting here yelling at my TV!!

I have to go to work but if I had time, I woiuld call and ask this dweeb who he voted for. He sure sounds like a partisan hack.

And for the record, I am NOT a 9/11 conspiracy believer.

[tnlefty]

43. Brian did ask him and he stated that he's a libertarian who voted for the

libertarian candidate in '00 and then because he didn't think the libertarian candidate had a chance in '04 voted for Kerry.

[acmejack]

8. So this is the 9/11 conspiracists are nuts thread?

Schermer is doing himself nmo favors here, his work on intelligent design aside. He is coming across as very weak he is not debunking a thing.

[leftchick]

11. he is insulting everyone who calls

this is making me sick. :puke:

[greyl]

28. Your post is utterly pathetic.

Why is there a need to be less than honest?

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. They expose themselves by ridiculing facts eom

[wildbilln864]

15. Shermer's a shit head so called debunker who obviously...

doesn't know shit about the facts of 911. I've seen him on plenty of History channel UFO programs debunking and he's a fucking liar because he said the BBC report about the highjackers being interviewed is a hoax!
Titanium doesn't disintegrate! What a maroon!

Why doesn't he have the guts to debate someone face to face?

[greyl]

30. You are misrepresenting the truth.

Shermer didn't say the BBC story is a hoax, he said there must be something more to it such as mistaken identity or bad reporting. His hunch was correct.
It's clear he hadn't seen the BBC article, but if he had he would have mentioned that it was published 10 days after 9/11 and that subsequent articles at BBC(and all over the planet) have shown that the original article was only talking about cases of mistaken identity.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Perhaps part of that 20 Million dollars set aside for Propaganda

was slipped to this a**clown under the table.

Most scientist I know are careful to qualify and ADMIT to other possibilities.

He's just a little to convenient in his parsing of words to come down on "The Bush Junta's" side in every damn instance.

I think he's getting payoffs as are certain key "Popular Mechanics" gear-heads. ;)

[KharmaTrain]

12. It's "Prove The Negative"

Brian brought this guy on to "show" you Conspiracy Nuts. He was determined to spend an hour of debunking...just like he's spent an hour in the past "debunking" boooosh's AWOL and drinking problems or Plamegate. He's gonna show us how "crazy" we are to think such thoughts or ask such questions. It's obvious he's annoyed by any criticism of this regime and dedicates Fridays to "setting things straight" or what he thinks is straight. Stay tuned...Novakula gets a free ride coming up.

[acmejack]

13. Fridays are always a joke.

Brian enjoys bullying callers, it is always a GOP fest.

[ShortnFiery]

82. That's why we tout the label "Fascist Friday with Brian Lamb" :-) n/t

[leftchick]

14. It is unbelievably transparent

showing a clip of Paul Thompson at the Press Club then have this asshole debunk what Paul has said. And Paul isn't there to rebut end of story! I hate Brian!

[wildbilln864]

21. Holy shit, what a joke Shermer is!

The pentagon doesn't have defense mechanisms for shooting down planes? A LIE!
That guy's a joke!
Everyone should write cspan and bitch about this asshole and demand equal time!

[greyl]

36. Lamb let Shermer get away with saying he voted for Kerry, and

that Bush could be attacked on any number of political fronts, including his non-reaction to the Aug PDB. Also, Shermer never says that people are crazy for asking questions. He only wants people to look for the answers independently rather than buy a shitty video(like Loose Change) hook, line, and sinker.

[wildbilln864]

40. you keep straining like...

that and you may hurt yourself!

[greyl]

41. Thanks for your erroneous comment. nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[DemonFighterLives]

19. He believes Oswald killed Kennedy

Kind of shows how deep this fella goes.
:silly:

[FoxOnTheRun]

20. Could he stop smirking .... and lying....

[leftchick]

22. he laughed when the freeper talked insulted libruls

he claims he voted for Kerry. Call me skeptical.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

23. he wants it both ways

he says it is understandable that the plane that hit the pentagon disintegrated, but when the plane nosed dived into the ground in pa. it is understandable that there was a wide debris field.

this guy should do an article for "skeptic magazine" on himself.

[greyl]

33. No, you're misunderstanding something.

the plane that hit the pentagon disintegrated, but when the plane nosed dived into the ground in pa. it is understandable that there was a wide debris field.

He says that both planes disintegrated and that there was a debris field in both.
His position doesn't contradict itself or the facts.

[dogday]

25. Shoots down one conspiracy for his

own that McVeigh was involved with "Islamics Extremist" .......

[FoxOnTheRun]

26. According to Alex Jones there were 3000 Republican Guards

from Iraq brought in. But he spins it to Islamofascist.

[greyl]

27. Your post contains major falsehoods.

Shermer didn't mention Paul Thompson or Press for Truth at all.

[leftchick]

29. Brian Lamb asked him about it and played a clip from the Press Club

am I deaf and blind?

[greyl]

31. I don't know if you're deaf or blind, but

there must be some explanation for why you are totally mistaken.
Who was speaking during the Press Club clip?

[leftchick]

32. PAUL THOMPSON!

At The 9/11 Press For Truth News Conference! perhaps you need new glasses?

[greyl]

34. What makes you think I was watching it?

I was streaming the audio. In any case, Shermer said nothing unkind about Paul Thompson, and he didn't mention the Press for Truth DVD.

I'll wait for someone to confirm that it was Thompson in the clip - it may have been, but that still doesn't exonerate your OP.

[leftchick]

35. oh please

if you were listening to it you would have heard Paul talking about the Generals warned Not to fly commercial flights on Sept. 10th. Shermer said he was wrong, that even Newsweek gets stories wrong sometimes.

And you insulted me. Nice.

[greyl]

37. Your OP is misleading or unclear.

If you meant that Shermer offered counterpoint to the NORAD myths when you said "This asshole is ripping apart Paul Thompson and the Press for Truth dvd", then your post is true.

Otherwise, it's extremely misleading.

edit:bldng

[leftchick]

38. it seems

you are the only one responding who feels misled. It is interesting to see you defend the jackass.

[greyl]

39. So far.

In my opinion, Michael Shermer is no jackass. Apparently you've never heard of him till this morning. Maybe you're jumping to a Hasty Conclusion?
How sure are you that it was Thompson speaking in the clip?

[leftchick]

47. lol!

I guess I can't believe my lying eyes! :rofl:

[atommom]

42. Why don't you watch it in full before accusing her of lying?

That's out of line.

[greyl]

44. I heard it in full, and the OP is very misleading. nt

[atommom]

45. So just explain how your interpretation differs, then.

The fact that you interpreted it differently isn't necessarily a reflection on either one of you. But keep in mind that you did not *watch* it, and some of the information presented was visual. (Without seeing the person in question, how can you say it wasn't him?)

[leftchick]

46. Brian SAID he was showing a Clip from the National Press Club

Where PAUL THOMPSON and the 9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH Committee were earlier this week. Some people obviously have selective hearing.

[greyl]

48. Did he say it was Thompson in the clip?

If so, my player must have been buffering at the time. Just like I missed where Shermer "ripped apart Paul Thompson".

[leftchick]

49. NO!

He said it was santa claus in the Clip! WTF? Why don't you do yourself a favor and watch it in the OP link to c-span.

[greyl]

54. I didn't think Thompson was even there. edited:

Can you provide me with some evidence that he was at the "American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and The Neo-Con Agenda" which C-Span covered?

edit: You must be talking about the Press for Truth press conference on 9/11/2006, right?

If so, sorry for that misunderstand. However, you still have no grounds to say Shermer was "ripping him apart" like you did. Do you have any comments on the substance of what he said, or just ad hominems?

[leftchick]

56. watch the c-span link

and decide for yourself. You are getting desperate here in your defense of that jackass.

[greyl]

59. What C-Span link?

I looked for archives of the show, but haven't found one yet.

Do you have anything substantive to say about Shermer's comments? Ad hominems don't count.

[leftchick]

66. not

to you. I am done.

[greyl]

69. There isn't a link, is there?

Now, why would you ask me to check out a link that doesn't exist? ;)

[Catherine Vincent]

72. here:

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

[greyl]

75. Thanks a lot. :)

Checking it out now. While it was live I had to stream the audio because I'm on a 26.4kbps dial-up connection.

[leftchick]

79. I had it in the OP

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

57. Paul Thompson was at the National Press Club in the video

You can clearly see the NPC logo behind him.

And I wouldn't say Shermer "ripped him apart." I don't see how he could have given that Thompson was asking a question about a "fact" that appeared in Newsweek two weeks in a row then suddenly got dropped from the discussion. I'm sorry, but I don't recall what the "fact" was. I do recall Shermer saying newsmagazine's frequently get the facts wrong, so the fact of a declaration appearing twice in a magazine over two weeks is not a guarantee that it was true. I wouldn't call that ripping Thompson apart.

[greyl]

60. Thanks, I jumped to the conclusion that the clip was from

the 9/11 Scholars thing that C-Span covered. Regardless of that detail, I agree that Shermer's demeanor didn't call for the extreme language in the OP.

[snappyturtle]

52. I WATCHED the whole disgusting episode.......

I SAW Paul Thompson! I know it was him because I have recently purchased and viewed 9/11 Press for Truth. I know Paul Thompson! I try to keep an open mind with conspiracy theories. If nothing else there needs to be further investigation into 9/11 to end all of the name calling. Having listened, read and watched conspiracy theories, I have to say I don't think Shermer was good at debunking the theories. I'd like to see him go up against the physicist that was on the Alex Jones LA conference about 9/11.

Basically, all I got from Shermer was: There's nothing here to see folks. Move along.

leftchick I think you need a :hug:!

[leftchick]

55. how sweet snappyturtle!

Thank you. :)

I taped that Press Club news conference and watched it twice. I have seen the PFT video. I think I know who Paul Thompson is. And I agree with your analysis of Shermer, he debunked nothing he just insulted people.

[BurtWorm]

58. They should have put the guy who wrote Skeptic's 9/11 article on.

Phil Molé.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

[greyl]

61. Heheh, I checked that out, too.

I posted the article in the S/11 Forum.

[BurtWorm]

63. Molé would have had the facts at hand, I'm guessing.

It's useless to put on a skeptic who doesn't have the facts at hand and can only talk about the subject in the most general terms.

[greyl]

64. Yes, but I think the general terms are important to consider.

It's true that speaking about conspiracy theories in general terms like Shermer was doing is a sure way to instantly piss off anyone who believes in any conspiracy theories, but it can help gain perspective on the details.

That was the problem with the callers. Most of them were parroting particularities from Loose Change, but hadn't bothered to check the facts for themselves or to step back and see how the theories are self-contradictory.

[Catherine Vincent]

50. He claimed he voted for Kerry.

And I didn't believe him one bit!

[leftchick]

51. he said at first

he voted libertarian in 2000 and 2004 then back tracked! It was pretty transparent.

[geek tragedy]

53. Are people still defending the "no plane hit the Pentagon theory?"

That's the theory that other 911 "truthers" think is disinfo put out to make the rest of them look stupid, right?

Sorry, but the "no plane hit the Pentagon" folks are just like the Creationists. They just have a different irrational belief system. No matter how many times it's debunked--there's plenty of eyewitnesses who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon--those nutjobs will attack anyone--even someone who voted for Kerry--for blaspheming their faith.

Thank god we have the dungeon for that rancid stupidity.

[DemocraticBassPlayer]

62. Read Skeptic for years

I know I have a small post amount...so flame away if you must...

Actually Skeptic Magazine takes a very logical approach to many issues important to the Democtrats such as Global Warming, Universal Health Care, and yes,,,various 911 theories

I have read this magazine for years and have gleaned much information that most "mainstream" publicatons avoid..I have found it to be a very valuable source of information. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as a supplemental source

My 2 cents
Regards
DemBassPlayer

[greyl]

65. Welcome to DU! :)

You must have intended to reply to the opening post (OP), eh? ;)

[immoderate]

73. Welcome DemBassPlayer

I'm usually with the skeptics myself. Good people around here, but, as in most places, critical thinking is not always the priority. I have been a Shermer fan for years, and I'm surprised that more folks don't know who he is.

You should drop into the Skeptics, and Also the Atheists groups here at DU. People know Shermer there.

:hi:

--IMM

[geek tragedy]

84. Oh, I agree with Skeptic 100% on the conspiracy nonsense.

I'm just stunned that people are still lapping up that "no plane hit the Pentagon" garbage.

[immoderate]

67. I thought Shermer's presentation was quite credible.

I have read his books and articles, heard him lecture, and spoken to him. He is one of the great voices of rationality in the world today. His skeptics society had Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi as founding members, has no ax to grind except a search for the truth.

He didn't say that Bush had to be the mastermind of 9-11, he said that it would be contradictory if he was. His arguments make sense as many of the conspiracy arguments do not. The point he made was that to accept some of the conspiracy arguments, other questions are generated that contradict things that are well known, but ignored.

Shermer's reputation is impeccable and I'm sure that he actually did the research, talked to the people on site, and did the science. The conspiracy theorists have a hash of theories that contradict each other, or alternatively use each other's theories as "evidence."

One of his big points is that it is human nature to seek patterns whether they exist or not, and all these formulations are made in retrospect. Sure there are loose ends and unanswered questions, but they do not point to a conspiracy, except by those who want to see a conspiracy.

--IMM

[Catherine Vincent]

68. I thought the opposite.

He needs to stay away from tv. I don't trust libertarians.

[greyl]

70. Was your reaction strictly emotional, or

can you cite something he said that was untrue?

[Catherine Vincent]

71. Not really emotional.

He looked like a jerk this morning. That is why I said he should stay away from tv. It doesn't become him.

[immoderate]

74. I'm a libertarian, so is Noam Chomsky.

Sorry you don't trust us, have I lied to you lately?

From Webster:

libertarian:
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Note that I don't capitalize it. What part of this definition inspires your mistrust?
Futher note: A lot of the people who are associated with the Libertarian Party are assholes. Some have found their way there because they are corporatists or wannabes. That's not me, and I suspect, not Shermer either.

If you were familiar with Shermer's writings, you would understand that he absolutely carries no water for this administration, and has no ax to grind, except a search for rational truth.

--IMM

[Catherine Vincent]

76. Okay, I don't trust most libertarians that come on tv...especially cspan

More than likely, they are former republicans. Sorry, I don't trust them.

[immoderate]

78. Those are the capital "L" Libertarians.

Many of them are Republicans who don't like the authoritarian aspects of Republican government: religiosity, censorship, anti-drug, anti-sex, etc. They are often militarist, corporatist, anti-environmental, and against the social programs that a modern society should support.

Shermer is not one of the asshole type of libertarians. He said he was fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. For instance, I am for social programs, which I think of as an investment in our civilization. I am conservative when it comes to military spending, which is wasteful and a drain on our resources.

To simplify my take on being libertarian: nobody should be able to tell me what to do. That doesn't ignore the fact that there are many things that people shouldn't do, which would be harmful or disrespectful to others.

--IMM

[donsu]

77. I'm skeptical of Michael dressed all in black to impress Shermer Skeptic

for one - he kept saying he knows it was an airliner that went into the pentagon because he has a friend that works there who went out and picked up pieces of the plane. repeated that a number of times.

for two - he said our military wasn't prepared to send planes to intercept other planes. I was born in D.C. and lived half my long life near Andrews Air Force Base and every one knew fighter jets and their pilots were kept on call 24/7 365. they trained constantly to see how fast they could get into the air. this is a known fact.

and three - he smirked

and four - his talk on how the bldgs. fell down is a bunch of crap. he said none of the firefighters, cops, etc. have come forward with any other evidence. I heard with my own ears the audio of a firefighter that got to the floor the plane hit and he said only part of that floor was on fire. he was talking as he was herding people down the stairs. and stopped talking and said they had just heard an explosion BELOW them and he was rushing down the stairs to see what it was when the audio was cut off and he was never heard from again.

I HEARD THAT, I'm not nuts.

and five - he and Lamb want people to read Popular Mechanics magazine article debunking the theories. didn't I read that P.M. is a bushmilhousegang backer?

but beyond all that is the reports from top security people that they had confirmed warnings of the attack that was to take place.

the bushmilhousegang KNEW and let it happen. that's the bottom line.

[ripple]

83. I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories

although I'm not ruling out that people in the administration had a pretty good idea about what was going to happen.

Still, CSPAN should have had Thompson or another guest on to explain their theory, rather than the one-sided viewpoint they showed today. They've had two guests with opposing viewpoints on at the same time before. Or, Thompson could have been on either before or after Shermer.

For a network that is supposed to be completely impartial and balanced, following Shermer with Novak was completely idiotic. I'm a CSPAN junkie and today's antics certainly aren't the norm for them, but I do notice this sort of thing occurs more frequently when Brian Lamb is hosting.

[Moderator]

85. locking....

This has become inflammatory.