Re: Re: Former n{REAGAN"S} Assistant Secretary of the Treasury's views on Sandy Hook
0 views
Skip to first unread message
cc2...@verizon.net
Dec 30, 2012, 8:57:37 PM12/30/12
to masso...@googlegroups.com
Abe
Any teacher/practicioner of history will tell you, it is standard practice to "pre-screen" the credentials, research interests, and other writings when judging the credibility of a text by any author. Otherwise, you drown in the sheer quantity of material- for ex. every year, thousands (no exaggeration) of new books on the subject of Hitler, WWII, Holocaust, etc, are published-- and most of them look much like the others, from the outside. So, we have "peer review" journals and a whole structure of people to offer guidance to sort it all out; and so, we allow some respected, wise, sometimes older heads , with a proven track record, to aid the scholarly community by making calls and doing some sorting. I am reading a new book by Ian Kershaw, German historian, about the last year of Hitler's regime; this guy is the best respected recent biographer of Hitler, he has a mega-impressive track record-- if he told me another book was "not so good", I would give that a lot of creedence. Because, as I say , if you think you are going to simply "read it all" and decide for yourself, you are going to go off your flippin nut---even Chomsky's brain can't hold it all....
So, when I look for background info of this Griffin, I see; advocate for supply-side econnomics, supporter of Chile's fascist dictator Pinochet over the elected Socialist Allende (dead w/help of CIA and Nixon/Kissinger), enemy of our court system for being too fussy about criminals rights, "the hero who brought neo-liberalism to France, at long last," pal of right-wing REpublicns like Jack Kent and William Simon---- I wonder if I can trust his judgement. Abe, you would not take this guy's word about Free Trade or the Vietnam War--- so why not doubt a bit on these "conspiracy" issues? And, I do respect the overall views of Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Alex Cockburn--- all the left-leaning "9/11 conspiracy deniers " your source article cittes. In his lifetime, I never saw old Alex Cockburn pull any punches in going after errors and crimes of the US; so, if he says "they're {9/11 deniers} way offf" -- I don't take his word for it, but I get my critical radar turned up.
RE conspiraciy theories in general, The very wise, respected left-leaning historian Richard Hoffsetter did famously observe that there is a "paranoid style" that is very typical of some American rigtht wing radicals--- they do not just see "error" in the views of the opposing side. but malign intent, "evil," sinister, dis-honest. Not just "a differnt agenda from us", but a despicable "hidden agenda". Why this style? I hope, because they are aware that in the long run they are loosing, and progress in ideas and institutions will win. It's a panick reaction. I hate to see that kind of tendency among people of the left, exactly because I want us to win, and I think that will require clear thinking, not paranoia. For starters, we should be trying to understand our opponents in their own terms, taking as given that they really do believe the things they say they believe. That is really hard. That is the intellectual "grunt work" behind the broader movement for change . By contrast , paranoia is too easy--- it's a formula to follow, starting with the assumption that the enemy is a mighty, deceitful, immoral minority, deserving of no respect or sympathy, and that plain folks are their innocent, unwitting victims .
Having said all that, on the general subject of the credibility of conspiracy theorists".... I have gone over the 9/11 stuff with you before, when the issue was WTC 7 (right no?) the one that went down but was never hit. I will re-forward that to you only.... Upshot, it seems 9/11 deniers focus on that building precisely because it was not hit, so cause of it's falling was unclear. But, as your sources here indicate, not so unclear as all that. All builings close to the 2 towers were violently shaken by the fall of those towers. And, that building had a lot of fuel oil stored in it. Fire weakens steel beams, as your sources admit, even if it does not melt them. Heat rises toward top, top floor beams buckle, one floor collapses onto other floor.... sudden shock buckles floor beneath, and then a cascade, It looks sudden, as is often true when mechanical changes reach a "tipping point", but it is the result of an hours long burning, weakening.
So many 9/11 deniers will say--- "When I saw it, it was OBVIOUS that it was a controlled detonation...." And that is when they lose my trust. They made up their minds after a 20sec glance at a shaky video. They know that a building collapse from a fire or whatever would not look like that.... And HOW do they know exaclty what a building hit by a 747 filled with jet fuel or the neighbboring building that was set ablaze, look like coming down? How often does that happen, and give us an example to compare it to? Every building collapse video I ever saw before 9/11 was of some old housing project or out-dated Vegas hotel, being INTENTIONALY IMPLODED. So, of course, that idea leaps into mind.... That's why they do an investigation as well as eyeball a video.
And as for 9/11 , the 2 towers; do you believe 2 planes hit those towers? Big ones, filled with jet fuel? That jet fuel and other combustables, burning in a confined oven-like space, reaches temps hot enough to weaken and buckle steel? The article linked here conceeds all those points. So-- are you saying the plane hits were a coincidence, or done to mislead? AND-- there is clear video footage of the outside support girders near the impact site on the tower, snapping--- and seconds later, the collapse begins, starting at that floor... How was all this.... "rigged" to happen? Why such an elaborate plot? After all, the truck bombing of the towers back in 93 only missed because the truck was not in quite the right place.... 2 trucks in the right place would have worked like a charm.... Why go thru recruiting 20 men, getting them pilot training--- all that hastle, just to be a diversion?
However--- I will, for the last time, go thru all the factual stuff on Sandy Hook, and on 9/11, you pass on, and make simple point by point comments. As with the last time, you might not be satisfied, but I hope we can then move on to other issues--- I doubt you will convert me, or I convert you.......
JC
Any teacher/practicioner of history will tell you, it is standard practice to "pre-screen" the credentials, research interests, and other writings when judging the credibility of a text by any author. Otherwise, you drown in the sheer quantity of material- for ex. every year, thousands (no exaggeration) of new books on the subject of Hitler, WWII, Holocaust, etc, are published-- and most of them look much like the others, from the outside. So, we have "peer review" journals and a whole structure of people to offer guidance to sort it all out; and so, we allow some respected, wise, sometimes older heads , with a proven track record, to aid the scholarly community by making calls and doing some sorting. I am reading a new book by Ian Kershaw, German historian, about the last year of Hitler's regime; this guy is the best respected recent biographer of Hitler, he has a mega-impressive track record-- if he told me another book was "not so good", I would give that a lot of creedence. Because, as I say , if you think you are going to simply "read it all" and decide for yourself, you are going to go off your flippin nut---even Chomsky's brain can't hold it all....
So, when I look for background info of this Griffin, I see; advocate for supply-side econnomics, supporter of Chile's fascist dictator Pinochet over the elected Socialist Allende (dead w/help of CIA and Nixon/Kissinger), enemy of our court system for being too fussy about criminals rights, "the hero who brought neo-liberalism to France, at long last," pal of right-wing REpublicns like Jack Kent and William Simon---- I wonder if I can trust his judgement. Abe, you would not take this guy's word about Free Trade or the Vietnam War--- so why not doubt a bit on these "conspiracy" issues? And, I do respect the overall views of Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Alex Cockburn--- all the left-leaning "9/11 conspiracy deniers " your source article cittes. In his lifetime, I never saw old Alex Cockburn pull any punches in going after errors and crimes of the US; so, if he says "they're {9/11 deniers} way offf" -- I don't take his word for it, but I get my critical radar turned up.
RE conspiraciy theories in general, The very wise, respected left-leaning historian Richard Hoffsetter did famously observe that there is a "paranoid style" that is very typical of some American rigtht wing radicals--- they do not just see "error" in the views of the opposing side. but malign intent, "evil," sinister, dis-honest. Not just "a differnt agenda from us", but a despicable "hidden agenda". Why this style? I hope, because they are aware that in the long run they are loosing, and progress in ideas and institutions will win. It's a panick reaction. I hate to see that kind of tendency among people of the left, exactly because I want us to win, and I think that will require clear thinking, not paranoia. For starters, we should be trying to understand our opponents in their own terms, taking as given that they really do believe the things they say they believe. That is really hard. That is the intellectual "grunt work" behind the broader movement for change . By contrast , paranoia is too easy--- it's a formula to follow, starting with the assumption that the enemy is a mighty, deceitful, immoral minority, deserving of no respect or sympathy, and that plain folks are their innocent, unwitting victims .
Having said all that, on the general subject of the credibility of conspiracy theorists".... I have gone over the 9/11 stuff with you before, when the issue was WTC 7 (right no?) the one that went down but was never hit. I will re-forward that to you only.... Upshot, it seems 9/11 deniers focus on that building precisely because it was not hit, so cause of it's falling was unclear. But, as your sources here indicate, not so unclear as all that. All builings close to the 2 towers were violently shaken by the fall of those towers. And, that building had a lot of fuel oil stored in it. Fire weakens steel beams, as your sources admit, even if it does not melt them. Heat rises toward top, top floor beams buckle, one floor collapses onto other floor.... sudden shock buckles floor beneath, and then a cascade, It looks sudden, as is often true when mechanical changes reach a "tipping point", but it is the result of an hours long burning, weakening.
So many 9/11 deniers will say--- "When I saw it, it was OBVIOUS that it was a controlled detonation...." And that is when they lose my trust. They made up their minds after a 20sec glance at a shaky video. They know that a building collapse from a fire or whatever would not look like that.... And HOW do they know exaclty what a building hit by a 747 filled with jet fuel or the neighbboring building that was set ablaze, look like coming down? How often does that happen, and give us an example to compare it to? Every building collapse video I ever saw before 9/11 was of some old housing project or out-dated Vegas hotel, being INTENTIONALY IMPLODED. So, of course, that idea leaps into mind.... That's why they do an investigation as well as eyeball a video.
And as for 9/11 , the 2 towers; do you believe 2 planes hit those towers? Big ones, filled with jet fuel? That jet fuel and other combustables, burning in a confined oven-like space, reaches temps hot enough to weaken and buckle steel? The article linked here conceeds all those points. So-- are you saying the plane hits were a coincidence, or done to mislead? AND-- there is clear video footage of the outside support girders near the impact site on the tower, snapping--- and seconds later, the collapse begins, starting at that floor... How was all this.... "rigged" to happen? Why such an elaborate plot? After all, the truck bombing of the towers back in 93 only missed because the truck was not in quite the right place.... 2 trucks in the right place would have worked like a charm.... Why go thru recruiting 20 men, getting them pilot training--- all that hastle, just to be a diversion?
However--- I will, for the last time, go thru all the factual stuff on Sandy Hook, and on 9/11, you pass on, and make simple point by point comments. As with the last time, you might not be satisfied, but I hope we can then move on to other issues--- I doubt you will convert me, or I convert you.......
JC
FIRST: about the Griffin analysis? I am still very curious to know what you have to say about it. As anyone who has read his analysis would be.
SECOND:
If you know of his writings lately, he has implicitly called for revolution against the banksters.
please read this for a more complete view of his works http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/paulcraigroberts_box.htm
I worked with a guy who cheats people, I don't anymore, is he my 'pal'?
Though, this has DIDDLY SQUAT to do with the ideas that he just happens to be the one presenting.
Again, about the merits of the IDEAS, what do you have to say? Did you even read the article Joe?
Not very progressive for you to dismiss what you have not read- assuming you have not read it, you haven't said, so i dont know. If the ideas are so bad, shouldn't you be able to figure out why and tell me and others?
Hoping we can figure this out, for I want nothing but the truth, no matter who says it and what they have done in the past. I am not asking people to vote for Paul for president, I am asking people to evaluate ideas for their merit, nothing more.
Confident we can have a fair discussion that evaluates everything relevant,
-Abe
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM, <cc2...@verizon.net> wrote:
Abe
RE this "Paul Robets"--- did you look at what he lists as his credentials? Former Asst Secy Treasury under.. Ronald Reagan. The jounals he has contributed to are heavy on stuff like National Review, Public Interest... hard right journals. Ties to the right-leaning Hoover Institution, {As in Herbert Hoover, led US at onset of depression, denounced FDR's New Deal as Socialism."} And look at quote from Le Figaro, praising him for bringing Neo-liberal, free market policies to France..
Considering his pals, why should I give much creedence to this dude??
Joe COn 12/30/12, abram spritzler<aspri...@gmail.com> wrote:
nick giannone
Dec 30, 2012, 9:00:02 PM12/30/12
to masso...@googlegroups.com
And yet another organizing listserve succumbs to 9/11 troofers and other wackery. Later.
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:57:37 -0600
From: cc2...@verizon.net
To: masso...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Former n{REAGAN"S} Assistant Secretary of the Treasury's views on Sandy Hook
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:57:37 -0600
From: cc2...@verizon.net
To: masso...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Former n{REAGAN"S} Assistant Secretary of the Treasury's views on Sandy Hook
Paul Garver
Dec 30, 2012, 9:38:29 PM12/30/12
to masso...@googlegroups.com
With all due concern for the people like you who are trying to bring rationality to this list, I am going to leave the group. Life is too short, and the urgency of changing our perverse national priorities too pressing, to continue to follow it.
Best new year to all,
Paul Garver
cc2...@verizon.net
Dec 30, 2012, 11:59:56 PM12/30/12
to masso...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages