A “Retard” Says Goodbye

In a post about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, SVD recently said that – wait up, let me just blockquote what he said:

I’ve been of the mindset for a long time that the government is far too incompetent to pull off 9/11, and it seems Matt and Trey are on my side on this one. Feels extra good to be on the common sense side of libertarianism watching this.

I still expect our resident conspiracy readers to fill the comments with links to websites and “truth.”

Haha”¦ retards.

Perhaps I am missing some inside South Park joke- I have mentioned that I am not a regular viewer- but calling people who may disagree with the government version of 9/11 retards is pretty damn rude. I do not afix a stupid label upon those believing the government story. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think some members of US government were complicit. I do not understand how a person working for a campaign that witnesses first hand the lies, manipulation, and exclusion of new ideas could even bring the word “retard” to his mind, let alone click “publish” once it is articulated.

HoT is (from the About page)

admittedly libertarian-leaning and openly advocate Libertarian Party candidates and policies, we are also introspective and take our own party to task from time to time.

It is my opinion that the Libertarian Party is the only political party that calls on the government to do what it should. The government in the USA- at least according to my recollection of Civics- is accountable to the American people. It is not the job of the public- the 30 something and growing percent anyway- to prove that a coverup happened. It is the job of our government to tell us the truth. The burden of proof lays upon the servants of the people. The burden should be on those bathing in power and controversy.

It is the responsibility of the people to demand that the burden be met. Our government is failing us, and some of the people entrusted with posting those failures have offended at the least me, at most, 30+% of our country.

Some say that we are preaching to the choir here. HoT has a freedom minded readership. When the choir fights amongst each other over which song god likes most, the hymn suffers. I am no longer part of the choir. Retards don’t usually sing in tune anyway.

It has been an interesting year here. I hope that we will all sing in tune one day but this is my last post. I hope you all live as freely as it is important to you.

posted by michelleshinghal
  • http://tommykeswick.com/blog/ Tommy Keswick

    “Perhaps I am missing some inside South Park joke”

    That’s exactly it. It was a joke on South Park.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Well said, Michelle! I wish you’d stick around, but I understand your feelings. Best of luck to you in your continued efforts fighting for liberty, whereever that may be.

  • Stuart Richards

    Egh… it may have been impolitic, but c’mon, when has this blog been politic? We only bitch about politics.

    You’re a good blogger, Michelle… and if you really are leaving, you’ll be missed.

  • Jeremiah

    Take care, Michelle. I dont blame you.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Geez, Michelle. You’re over-reacting. SVD was referencing something in the episode.

  • jadata

    Wow, what a loon.

  • Graham

    I think SVD has a track record of saying things like that, and I think it’s being taken the wrong way.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Graham… Track record or not, SVD is clearly refrencing something that was said (repeatedly) in the cartoon. Don’t obscure that fact just to make your point.

  • http://www.duoism.org a Duoist

    Goodbye, Michelle, and the very best to you. I enjoyed your obvious intelligence, your writing, and your ethic.

    As always, ‘be free.’

  • Timothy West

    It is not the job of the public- the 30 something and growing percent anyway- to prove that a coverup happened.

    those numbers are roughly the same number of americans that would agree with any poll question pro-offered as fact by the pollster in question. I could make a third of americans agree that a 10 trillion dollar national debt is good for America, if I got to choose my respondents and phrase the question to predict my answer I wanted to trumpet.

    I will never understand the MUST do tendency to invent conspiracies in the “libertarian” segment of citizenry, except that such things sell books, films, and magazines, which is another conspiracy, of course.

    We have so many “conspiracies” right out in the open that inventing new ones is a waste of time. Why not just go with the stuff we know can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Like our national debt, like electronic voting with no paper trail, like FUCKING IRAQ.

    If we just tackled those in proper manner?!

  • http://www.goplobby.org Rick Day

    We have so many “conspiracies” right out in the open that inventing new ones is a waste of time.

    TW,

    Those of us elders who are over 50 recognize the pattern of both history and our government. We ‘know’ that there was some type of conspiracy, even if they merely ‘let it happen’. It is just how things work when one wishes to circuvent a constitution.

    Me? My biggest ‘issue’ is where the flight hit the Pentagon: of all the targets in DC, and all the sections of that one building, where it hit caused the MAXIMUM emotional impact and the MINIMUM physical damage.

    What, God was on ‘our side’ that day?

    I probably make more income than most of you put together (top 2%) and it is HARD for a ‘retard’ to make 1/10 that. I resent that label like Michelle did.

    SVD used this word IN HIS POST not in the context of SP; nice try. He plainly called anyone who harbors any conspiracy theories like 9/11 RETARDS.

    And no I did not watch the show. I like SP, but gave up TV about 2 years ago.

    RD

  • Timothy West

    It is just how things work when one wishes to circuvent a constitution.

    I note with interest as I’ve said before, that the government is portrayed by people as totally sinister and evil when it suits their purposes, and also portrayed as a bunch of bumbling clowns with big red noses when THAT suits their purposes. It cant be both. Either Bush and Company are the greatest criminal masterminds in history or they are a bunch of loons, depending on what “conspiracy” we are talking about.

    I refuse to believe that a ‘President’ that failed in every task he undertook as an adult in private life is capable of even BEING LED as a puppet by someone who is 10 times smarter than he….someone like, say….Dick Cheney, who is both smart enough and evil enough to conspire.

    Bush has problems deciding if Tastykakes are in fact better than Little Debbie. He’s barely better than a functional illiterate.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    I’m not one for using the term “retard” myself, as I volunteer with “retards” every week and they are some of the most beautiful people I know. In fact, I would violate my libertarianism and say the state-run institution where I volunteer disproves the idea that everything done by the state is bad – the employees there are some of the most caring and responsible people I have ever met.

    And I would even go so far as to support state-funded institutions for “retards.” Many of these people have been abused by their families and are completely unable to take care of themselves, and private charities weren’t meeting the demands.

    That said, I can draw a line between Southpark’s political incorrectness and my personal loathing of the word. You can’t watch Southpark and expect not to be offended. It’s not fair to laugh as Southpark skewers everyone else’s idols, and then get mad when it skewers your own. The comment was in context of the show, and maybe you are overreacting.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    By the way, I’ll clarify: when I say “state-funded institutions for ‘retards’” I mean residential centers that provide medical assistance, rehabilitation, education and recreation, not government “asylums.”

  • Timothy West

    ….I would violate my libertarianism

    and THERE is the core reason why libertarianism fails. If one cannot acknowledge fact in persuit of truth because it is taboo to even mention it, there’s no chance of the philosophy to ever become mainstream. I have always said that that libertarianism works great – until you try to apply it to something you cant make a profit from. Then it fails miserably. Without a profit motive, or where profit is incompatable wih the action in question, the free market has nothing to offer anyone.

    It’s a legit question to ask why since no “pure” philosophy as ever worked upon application as intended, why we still insist that pure libertrianism will in all circumstances.

    Libertarianism needs more “violating”. That’s the main problem with it. It’s like the Bible, or the Quran. Not enough people stand up to it and say “ya know, I dont agree with all of this”. Not enough people stand against shit they know is wrong.

    I have observed the same as you.

  • Timothy West

    maybe not wrong, as that implies a negative motive.

    simply stated, challenge authority – but do it with forethought and with a goal. And above all, challenge what you do believe more than what you dont.

  • http://www.chuckmoulton.org/ Chuck Moulton

    I’ve enjoyed your posts. Best of luck to you.

  • http://www.st911.org Julius Caesar

    Mass murder by our government violates our initiation of force principle.

    Here’s the latest from Paul Craig Roberts:

    Bush’s Willing Legislators: The Case for Impeachment, and Why It Won’t Happen
    by Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts178.html

    Quote from article:

    “As long as Americans understand 9/11 as an attack on America by “Islamo-Fascism,” the executive branch will have wide latitude in usurping liberty.”

  • Sandra Kallander

    Individuals are not good at admitting mistakes. Subordinate individuals are especially susceptible to shading the unwelcome truth to their bosses, no matter who it reflects on. It makes sense that a collection of individuals would spontaneously cover-up unwelcome details whether of neglect, or whatever, without actually conspiring with each other, or even being aware of it.

    Government, para-military, military and many, many other institutions are loyalty-based. They are especially likely to hide the truth in favor of loyalty.

    Even “truth-based” (often heavy on math, physics, engineering) institutions are often incapable of telling the truth.

    Most often it is a single individual who tells the truth and not the organization.

    Parker and Trey are getting away with what they do (for now)by using a cartoon. I don’t imagine the real people they portray are particularly amused, but the rest of us can hear what they have to say because our names were changed to protect the guilty

  • Daniel

    I’ll miss you, Michelle. Your posts have been the most levelheaded of the bunch.

  • disinter

    Why Watered-Down Libertarianism Won’t Succeed

    http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/011528.html

  • http://www.st911.org Julius Caesar

    Latest Poll numbers:

    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.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

    DEBUNK THIS!!

  • Daniel

    TW:I note with interest as I’ve said before, that the government is portrayed by people as totally sinister and evil when it suits their purposes, and also portrayed as a bunch of bumbling clowns with big red noses when THAT suits their purposes. It cant be both.

    Put simply, managing a small number of people for any purpose is way the hell easier than managing 300 million of us. Social planning is vastly harder than conspiracy. In fact, the former is theoretically impossible, and the latter isn’t. It’s social planning that we say government always fails at.

    I would also submit for your consideration that if 9/11 was planned by Bush and company, they didn’t exactly pull it off without a hitch… it sure looks like not everything went as planned. Not that that could be expected, because it would have to be a pretty complex operation.

    Further, your notion that Bush is basically a walking vegetable is silly. He’s a fully functional adult human with several real, useful skills.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    Mike you keep posting that dumb link, but means nothing. Purist libertarianism has failed at everything. Rothbardian ideological rigidity and disparagement towards moderates, as well as the false idea that “any press is good press” have led the LP to be so marginalized and unappealing to almost everyone that moderate America (media, parties, etc.) pushes us aside as kooks. And early Christianity WAS watered down – the pagan holiday of Christmas is one among many examples that helped Christianity succeed in gaining a foothold in Europe.

    This isn’t about compromising principle – au contraire, it’s about going to the middle America and selling them on libertarianism. You can cater to the fringe and remain fringe, or target the heart and maybe win them over. Continuing the analogy, the Jesuit missionaries were able to sell Christianity throughout the world by adopting it the practices and beliefs of regional cultures, instead of expecting everyone everywhere to accept orthodox ideology.

  • John G4lt

    Daniel, you call verbal wankery a real, useful skill now?

  • Daniel

    you call verbal wankery a real, useful skill now?

    As a matter of fact, yes. It’s called politics.

  • Pavel

    Nick,

    You needn’t violate your libertarianism if you don’t want to. No one says that everything done by the state is bad in every way. Surely there are good people who work in many state agencies. But that’s true of any government, no matter how evil. Were there people who genuinely helped others in the Soviet government? Of course. Was that a point in favor of communism? No.

    The fact is, you can’t justify the use of force in reverse. Contrary to Mr. West’s (seemingly endless) assertions, you don’t need coercion to help others. People who are genuinely dedicated to serving their fellow man would, if anything, be more able to do so without the overhead of coercive government.

    And frankly, even if someone insists that the poor would starve in the streets without the government, a few social services here and there are not a fair trade for the millions of lives lost to war, IMO.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Best wishes for freedom, Michelle. I doubt you will find it in America, in the LP, or here at HoT anytime soon – perhaps you can in your own life.

    You said: I hope you all live as freely as it is important to you.. Sadly, very few libertarians dare to live freely. They are constrained by the straight jacket of self-imposed conformity and the fear of losing their toys and whatever freedom they have left.

    When you base your beliefs on your own perceptions (or misperceptions) of what others might think, how can you be free? Freedom of speech and thought is much more than regurgitating sound bites (received wisdom) that are acceptable to the group which one desparately seeks approval from.

    Wisdom received from the intellctually bankrupt is useless and destructive. Learned wisdom and experienced wisdom requires critical thinking and often a few hard knocks along the way. To smugly proclaim as retarded one who believes the government may be lying is too easy.

  • Tom Bryant

    Wow Michelle. You really should have watched the videos in the posting before reading the responses (it generally helps to first read the source material, and then read the comments on the source material).

    Then again, the retards who believe conspiracy theories generally have a hard time engaging in proper research – reading source material being one key part in real research.

    (Go watch the videos before commenting on the use of “retard”)

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    Michelle,
    I felt the same way when I read SVD’s post.
    And now that I think more about it I’mt angry that I gave $25 and have yet to see any progress as far as the site update is concerned. Lew Rockwell, Strike the Root and Anti-War.com are much better sites – from now on I’ll be going/linking to there.

    I watched the SouthPark episode and it definitely was poking fun at the 911 Truth Movement – but I don’t see why SVD would go out of his way to insult a good portion of his own audience.

    Elle

  • Timothy West

    there’s no greater conformity than that expressed in believers in ZAP/NAP. Fixed your comment , Tom.

    Sadly, very few libertarians dare to live freely. They are constrained by the straight jacket of ‘libertarianism’.

    I live more freely than many. It’s easy when you accept this definition as valid:

    1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
    2. One who believes in free will.

    I note that my definition does not exclude any pledgers, but that the pledgers definition excludes anyone not already pledged. Might be a clue here for the Hardly Boyz.

  • http://www.duoism.org a Duoist

    The psychic attraction of conspiracy theories is grounded in a personality which believes in determinism. The libertarian “neither right nor left” who is determinist is a conspiracy buff, much to the dismay of the libertarian who believes in free will and regards endless conspiracies as emotional, rather than rational.

    To the free will libertarian, the elaboration of conspiracies is rather ‘looney.’ To the determinist libertarian, the conspiracy is a self-evident truth.

    If we have lost Michelle’s blogging because of some anti-intellectual’s adolescent pejorative, that is such a shame, a shame made worse by the millennia irrationality of determinists and free willers sneering at the other’s psychology.

    ‘Be free,’ Michelle.

  • Chris Hickman

    Yeah what is the deal with the $25 donation? I feel bilked at this point.

  • Daniel

    I’m pretty sure that those of us who bought ‘lifetime memberships’ in LibertyMix got scammed. It sucks, but live and learn.

  • http://libertyforamerica.net/blog/24 Equal Opportunity Cynic

    That said, I can draw a line between Southpark’s political incorrectness and my personal loathing of the word. You can’t watch Southpark and expect not to be offended. It’s not fair to laugh as Southpark skewers everyone else’s idols, and then get mad when it skewers your own. The comment was in context of the show, and maybe you are overreacting.

    Yeah, what Nick said. Using that word in that way is only acceptable to me because of the whole post-PC aesthetic of SP. Then again, we can probably think of words that would be too offensive even then, suggesting that it’s a question of degree.

  • http://libertyforamerica.net/blog/24 Equal Opportunity Cynic

    Daniel, Chris Hickman:

    While you’re understandably upset at donating money for vaporware, my understanding is that Liberty for America is seeking to fill the role that ‘Mix would be, if it weren’t “coiling for strike, standby…”. Some people may balk at looking at ads for George Phillies, but it’s not like he has any editorial control (except that he’s one of the most prolific posters there right now).

    Incidentally, that snail on the ‘Mix splash page looks like a snake…. better fix it.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    EOC – Post #11 from Rick:

    SVD used this word IN HIS POST not in the context of SP; nice try. He plainly called anyone who harbors any conspiracy theories like 9/11 RETARDS.

    I watch SP often – and I’m not complaining about the SP episode (they have a right to their opinion). I just feel that I’ve been supporting someone who constantly mocks me and other people simply for not thinking like he does.

  • Julian

    It appears so-called libertarians are very thin skinned. They can dish it out but when they are satirized the first thing they do is go home with their toys and cry to mama.

    When the revolution begins I don’t want any of you in my tribe fighting for freedom. I have no time or sympathy for whiners.

    I will align with true freedom fighters, not with a bunch of wannabe wimps. Go back to your couches and play video games, have another bag of Doritos, keep bitching until words change the world to your personal Utopia and waste your time on the conspiracy websites. Way to go people.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    I’m pretty thick skinned. Would you provide any form of financial support to someone who called you a RETARD?

  • http://www.phillies2008.com George Phillies

    My contribution to Liberty for America http://www.libertyforamerica.NET was to buy advertising on it, and to send off text contributions to get it off the ground.

    Most recently, parts 1-5 of The Republican War on America, including the filing of Jose Padilla’s attorney, asking that the case against him should be dropped on the grounds that for most of his captivity he, an American citizen arrested in America, was tortured on a regular basis.

  • http://libertyforamerica.net/blog/24 Equal Opportunity Cynic

    Michelle,

    You’re right that the tone of the post is mocking, no doubt. My point was just about the term retards as used in a South Park-specific context versus used in everyday conversation.

    The post is certainly dismissive of those with your point of view on this issue. How you choose to react to that is up to you, but if you stop blogging here I hope you’ll blog elsewhere so that we can still read what you have to say.

  • disinter

    Mike you keep posting that dumb link, but means nothing.

    I can’t figure out how 1) a link can possible be dumb, since it has no mental capacity and 2) How the information provided at the link’s location can possibly mean “nothing”.

    But, this is the kind of response that is expected from you… carry on.

    Here’s the link again, just for kicks and giggles:

    Why Watered-Down Libertarianism Won’t Succeed

    http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/011528.html

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    Mike,
    I think the link is right on, but then again I almost forgot – I’m allegedly “A RETARD”.

    Heh

  • Leroy

    Michelle,

    I always enjoy reading your blogs and HoT won’t be the same without you. I have a few comments:

    1. It will be interesting to hear SVD’s response here. I don’t think personal insults are productive, but yet again, when have libertarians ever worried about huring other people’s feelings? (at least when discussing politics).

    2. SVD isn’t the only blogger here and doesn’t represent anyone’s opinions but himself. Why leave just because of one person’s comments? I’m afraid I have to agree with Julian here (it’s rare but it happens). Libertarians must be thick skinned and not run away when someone insults you. You should stick around and take the higher ground.

    Hopefully SVD will grow up someday and realize that insults and foul language are counter-productive.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Tim, thanks for “fixing” my comment at #31:

    They are constrained by the straight jacket of ”˜libertarianism’

    You are indeed correct since “libertarianism” now has no real meaning. This is why I shy away from identifying myself as a “libertarian” these days and instead just say that I am an advocate for freedom. I do not wish to be associated with the wide range of crackpots (from Dr. Carl to King Boortz) that have caused so much damage to the movement.

    However, Tim, it is good to see you are working so hard to promote your cause within the big circus tent – after all things like pledges are essential to your cause, whatever that may be. I would suggest that your next project include changing the color of the LP logo and standardizing the size of bumper stickers.

    A new motto may also be in order. May I suggest:

    “Give me liberty, but not too much”

    Or

    “Freedom, subject to prevailing public opinion, in my grandchild’s lifetime”

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Oh my, did I call Dr. Carl and King Boortz crackpots? That is just plain wrong. I should have described them as retards.

    Since this whole thread is about conspiracies, let me just say that government itself is a conspiracy, or rather thousands of conspiracies. Unfortunately, no matter how many people who call themselves “libertarians” are elected, that will never change the true nature of government.

  • bac

    The Libertarians have their own deceptions. Libertarians are hoping people will think of liberty and have liberty with the libertarin party. In reality the Libertarins have their own idaes of government control. Libertarians are for freedom but not total freedom. Libertarians are for liberty but not total liberty.

    The big question is can there be a political party for anarchy?

    As for the name calling, sticks and stones. I have been called worse.

  • http://www.tom-hanna.org Tom Hanna

    Ironic that Michelle’s response to a post about South Park would be so similar to Isaac “Chef” Hayes response to an episode of South Park. There is truly no new thing under the sun.

  • Timothy West

    The big question is can there be a political party for anarchy?

    Yeah, that’s the LP. The question is: can it be anything in addition to that? Can it occupy the gaping political space left by the Republicans going Christian Fascist?

    After years of thinking that the LP was in perfect position to do that and thereby enlarge it’s scope and start to finally make a real difference, I now am not so sure. The only question for me is how best to invest the next 2 years time until 08.

    I have little interest in advancing “libertarianism” as a philosophy. I dont care how many people sign the little pledge, except to where I believe that it blocks money and support from the LP. I want results based public policy change, not to see how many people will sign the pledge and “become libertarian”.

    I want real change in the direction of liberty that I can see. If I really believe I cant ever get that from the LP becuase of it’s numerous internal problems, I’d be better off somewhere else.

  • Timothy West

    And of course, my personal circumstances have changed a lot in the last 2 years. Thinking that you are gonna die changes you in many ways. The things I found most important 2 years ago are somewhat less so today.

    Being told to get your affairs in order brings the important things in sharp focus and kinda nullifies the bullshit.

  • undercover_anarchist

    The same people who are so offended by SVD satirically using the word “retard” are the ones defending Kinky Friedman’s constant racism and dismissing it as “PC speech control” or “taken out of context.” I guess when you subtract race from the mix, libertarians are just as bad as panty-waisted “liberals.”

  • Mark

    Michelle, I wish you would reconsider. I enjoyed your posts.

    I too was once a “retard” in the sense I believed those silly conspiracy theories.

    It wasnt until I watched the video “Screw Loose Change” that I slapped myself in the head for being such a fool.

    Screw Loose Change debunks everything in the Loose change video.

    “Screw Loose Change”
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=screw+loose+change&hl=en

    Also:
    “Loose Change Guide”
    http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

    What else is there to question?

  • http://www.crazyforliberty.com Doug Craig

    OK guys I am lost on this Liberty mix thing what was it or what is going to and why did people give money to it.I also do not understand why Michelle would quit over this guys comment.HOT was the reason I started blogging,People like Michelle is one of those reasons I started blogging.Man working on campaigns there is always some one around with a bad attitude or no clue.Do not let one person make you quit because if we did we would never win the battle for freedom, and that is what you do at HOT (battle for freedom).

  • Wesley

    I do think that the government probably hid some facts concerning 9/11. When have they not?

    That being said, I loved the South Park episode. I think that conspiracy theorists that think the government had an active role behind 9/11 are being dumb, to put it mildly. I think South Park made their point well, and SVD was merely repeating the overexaggerated South Park term which was PURPOSELY an overexaggeration to make a point.

    I have enjoyed Michelle’s posts, but she is ridiculously overreacting to this. It’s SOUTH PARK.

  • George Whitfield

    Farewell Michelle. I have enjoyed your posts on this blog. I think that you may feel more comfortable and find it more rewarding to devote your efforts for the Libertarian Party in campaign activism rather than as a blog commentator. I empathize with you.

  • paulie cannoli

    Michelle,

    I enjoyed your post a lot. Email me if you’re not going to be on here maybe?

    paul

  • paulie cannoli
  • paulie cannoli

    Excuse me? Nineteen people in a cave could make NORAD stand-down, fly Cessna planes and otherwise catch an elaborate and leading intelligence network off-guard, but the government could not because Bush is a moron?

  • disinter

    Who is it that gets together in mobs and hunts down, tortures and kills people who are different from them? Who is it that teaches modesty, courtesy, and generositv but lives in depravity, rudeness, and greed? Who is it that can gather together the time, energy and money to murder millions and destroy cities for the sake of a flag, deity, or economic system? Not weirdoes, not kooks or cranks or nuts. It’s the “Normal” people who do those things.

    http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/02/subgenius_rant_why_n.html

    ACT NORMAL you damn conspiracy retards!

  • Getreal

    Conspiracy addicts should not be called retards. That is demeaning to retards the world over. It is inaccurate. Paranoid, delusional, illogical are much better words to describe that sort of insanity.

  • jeffrey smith

    I was offended by the use of “retard” to refer to those people who believe that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy. But not for the reason Michelle was offended.

    I’m one of the “real retards”–one of those people whom the majority of people review as being defective people because our minds are different in important ways from the statistical norm of the population, and whom the majority therefore generally want to sequester, euthanize, and (when genetic testing is perfected) aborted, because they believe different is synonymous with defective. (In my case, “high functioning” autistic, which term itself is a vague bit of pseudo science.)

    And I would be ashamed to be connected to the lack of intellectual rigor that is needed to believe in “government did 9/11″ (as opposed to “government did its best to hide its incompentency post hoc”, which is so probable as to be almost certain). Any such explanation would require too much Rube Goldberg mechanisms to be realistic.

  • Stuart Richards

    LOL Jeff, you’re cool man.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    Ironic that Michelle’s response to a post about South Park would be so similar to Isaac “Chef” Hayes response to an episode of South Park.

    That was exactly what I was thinking when I said “It’s not fair to laugh as Southpark skewers everyone else’s idols, and then get mad when it skewers your own.” They are willing to do this to everyone, so how can you pretend you are exempt from being satirized.

    Personally, I think the people who live and breathe conspiracy theories deserve mockery – although I do think that people are in the right to question what happened on 9/11. I also think that people do not have to voluntarily give money to people or organizations who they feel do not represent them.

    But, I think you need to better consider whether or not SVD’s post was simply in the jestful, politically incorrect spirit of the show or if he was really taking the show’s thesis to a hateful, personal level against you and other 9/11 doubters. I’m not convinced he was.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org/ Kris Overstreet

    Conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, aren’t retarded- merely delusional.

    I once posted a link to a cartoon lampooning the incredible complexity required to pull off what conspiracy theorists say Bush did to create 9/11. Rather than go back to that, I’ll put it in text:

    WHICH IS MORE LIKELY:

    * that eighteen men, backed with funds and organizational support from an organized group, managed to stay a step ahead of the authorities for two years, taking advantage of known holes in the system and an apathetic administration to hijack four planes and use them to deliberately ram buildings and kill people; or

    * that George W. Bush managed to keep the murder of about 400 airline passengers and pilots, the dismantling and destruction of their aircraft, the replacement of said aircraft with military aircraft that look just like airliners, and the massive insertion of false evidence to frame al-Qaida a secret… despite requiring hundreds, even thousands of people for all this to happen?

  • http://www.libertymix.com Where is LibertyMix?

    I’m pretty sure that those of us who bought ”˜lifetime memberships’ in LibertyMix got scammed.

    It’s looking that way. Even weekly updates, which would take a minute today, haven’t been forthcoming. When you reach that point, you’re entering rip-off territory.

  • DAP

    Michelle, I think that your writing and persuasive abilities are perhaps too good for this blog. However, its unfortunate that you had to leave on something as silly as a 9-11 conspiracy theory.

  • Michael H. Wilson

    I worked in the government for four years. Very few people in the government are capable of pulling off a scam of the magnitude of the events of 9/11 and it is doubtful you could get them all in the same place at once.
    Is it possible they knew something was going to happen? Yes. Did they hope it would lead us to war with Iraq? Yes.
    Was it a hell of alot bigger than they guessed? Yes.
    Is it possible that Bush and company just didn’t pay attention to what was in front of them? Obviously.
    Is Bush at least as incompetent as Ken Lay of Enron? Of Course.
    BTW Julian my tribe is bigger than your tribe and we know how to shoot straight.
    Having sent in a $50 check here’s hoping for an update on
    Liberty Mix.
    M.H.W.

  • http://www.duoism.org a Duoist

    The retort, “Can’t you take a joke?”, or “Just kidding,” is the attempt by those of who us who feel ourselves to be inferior to assert a sense of superiority over others whom we have just insulted. The original insult counts–as it was meant to–despite the quite common effort to soften the stab after the knife has been successfully inserted.

    All insults–ALL insults–begin with an implied or explicit ‘you,’ which effectively “pins” the insult to the target, and the target senses this immediately. The insult was psychically designed to hurt, again, in an effort to assert a sense of superiority where a deeper sense of inferiority is lurking.

    Michelle has been lost to blogging because of the deliberate insult, with its implied ‘you,’ effectively denigrated her as an equal, treating her as an inferior. The attempts to excuse vicious behavior by another blogger castgating Michelle’s unreasonableness in quitting are, themselves, condoning the use of bullying insult to win an argument.

  • Getreal

    Whine, whine, whine. I read the original post that got Michelle’s knickers in a twist. She over reacting but then that fits people who over react and find plots, conspiracies and other such rot. Maybe the post was really a Masonic, Jewiish, Bankers, Illuminati, CIA, Commie-Pinko, Vatican conspiracy? Don’t you think? They are everyhere you know even disguised as libertarians. You can’t trust anyone. Stay armed, hunker down in the bunker. The black helicopters are coming.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    “deliberate insult”
    “treating her as an inferior”
    “vicious behavior”

    Unless you are SVD hiding behind a pseudonym, I think it is difficult for you to put words or assumptions into his mouth of this nature. I’m still interested in his response, but I think that you are delivering a verdict on a offhand, maybe misguided (but relevant in the show’s context) insult that I strongly doubt held any personal hatred towards Michelle or any other 9/11 conspiracy theorists as people.

    To make that jump also implies that Parker and Stone (SP creators) must be the most bigoted, racist and vicious people around, because their show is filled with comments like this. I don’t think it’s about hatred – it’s about using childish vocabulary and potty humor to turn a serious political debate into something we can all sit back and laugh at for an hour and a half.

    And WTF happened to libertarians loathing PC? I’m personally immensely PC in my own word choices, but still…it’s kind of weird…

  • undercover_anarchist

    Like I say, Nick. A lot of Libertarians are closet racists, and their disdain for political correctness only extends to racial matters. They’re quick to say that every racist remark is taken “out of context.” But they’re ultra-sensitive when someone calls them into question.

    Sticks and fucking stones you little babies.

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall

    Michelle,

    There’s plenty of room for you to reconsider your decision. Celebrities and media figures do it all the time. Look at Theo Epstein for the Red Sox. You’ve done nothing wrong and your return would be welcome by many.

    Before South Park even existed I wanted to start something like HoT in my twenties. Unfortunately the technology was just nascent and people kept paying me to do other things. There’s plenty of space and time for libertarian prattling in the next two years. WE only have a few weeks until the election. Everybody should get back on board and save the implosions and hand wringing for Nov. 8th

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Dear Michelle,
    Sad to see you go. Drop me an email about that bet re: Kinky’s gubernatorial campaign.

    Yours truly,
    Nick

  • http://www.crazyforliberty.com Doug Craig

    Hey guys on my post 53 I had some questions . Did any post answers these questions and I missed it, if not could some one help me out.

  • Erin

    Sorry to see you go, Michelle. Of late, yours were the posts I most often found enjoyable. Best of luck in your forthcoming pursuits.

  • http://www.st911.org Julius Caesar

    So the polls say 16% think Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

    Well, now I can say that a lot of libertarians support a fringe idea.

    The “lone nut” idea about 9/11 being peddled is even nutier.

  • Stuart Richards

    Sundwall knows the score.

    How’s the campaign going, BTW? Haven’t seen much in the ol’ inbox and I was gonna do a follow-up piece on my last one about you, Eric.

  • http://www.sundwall4congress.org Eric Sundwall

    Stuart,

    Unfortunately the ‘electionista’ as you so aptly describe it has put me out of business. We brought the case last Tuesday in front of Judge Kahn in Northern District Federal Court. He rejected our pleading for a Temporary Restraining Order on the Board of Elections, it least we made them actually work on a weekend. Having put in multiple thousands into the campaign a few more just wasn’t possible for an appeal. It will give me a decent lobbyist approach in Albany next Spring.

    So that leaves me stumping for statewide folks and a few around the country. I’ve been posting video from the LP convention in Portland at our campaign site. Send me a note or call, I have plenty of time now . . . I’ll be at the LNC meeting in DC just after election day . . . Thanks again.

  • Stuart Richards

    Ouch, that’s rough man.

    Well, there’s always the next election cycle. You were running a pretty solid campaign so I’m sure support will materialize again if you decide to run later on.

  • http://www.st911.org Julius Caesar

    Here is a good debunking of the movie Loose Change:

    Sifting Through
    Loose Change
    The 9-11Research Companion to
    LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
    A detailed point-by-point critique of the film using an illustrated transcript
    http://www.911research.com/reviews/loose_change/index.html

  • http://www.freestateproject.org Keith

    Yes, the truth is somewhere inbetween. Steve may have gone too far when he called you a retard. Maybe you should have asked him to say sorry or something. You seem very emotional about all of this, anyway.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    Doug Craig,
    This link might answer some of your questions:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/badnarik2008@yahoogroups.com/msg00055.html

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    Doug,
    Here is another link – this is what I read – it got me excited and I donated to the cause based on what I read

    http://hammeroftruth.com/liberty-venture/

  • http://articulatecampaigns.com Allen Hacker

    81 comments and I don’t see anyone considering the obvious.

    Straw. Camel. Back.

    Too many trees, not enough forest.

    -0-

  • GreginOz

    Ah Michelle
    sans merci, La Belle,
    Au revoir,
    mon petit fleur,
    your leaving I abjure,
    you were ideologically pure
    and now I am left
    (well actually, right)
    mit der schweinen in der zoo!

  • http://www.libertymix.com Where is LibertyMix?

    OK guys I am lost on this Liberty mix thing what was it or what is going to and why did people give money to it.

    It was supposed to the Libertarian answer to DailyKos. It was talked up real big – Michael Badnarik even came on and endorsed it (though he later denied it and said he’d never heard of it.) Lots of us donated. We were told there’d be a demo version for lifetime subscribers in February.

    There were very few updates, and then none. There have been no updates in some time, no timeline, no progress reports, etc.

  • TerryP

    I am sorry to see you go Michelle, I thought you were one of the best bloggers on the site. To be quite honest I am getting a little sick of the in-fighting myself. That does nothing to further freedom. It just seems to go back and forth between parties and accomplishes nothing. Let’s all get back to furthering freedom and getting rid of the authoritarian reps and Dems.

  • Andy

    People who question the official government story about 9/11 are such retards. Like all of those retards at Scholars For 9/11 Truth. What a bunch of morons those PHD’s are, especially that physics professor from BYU Steve Jones, what an idiot.

    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

  • Andy

    BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones Lecture on 9/11
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjhjYMudKJw

  • Andy

    Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis.htm

  • Andy

    Michelle, I’m sorry to see you leave over this. The REAL retards are the people who believe the government’s story.

    I have a challenge for all of you who believe the official government story about 9/11. Let’s have a public debate on the subject. Since this is a libertarian discussion forum and a lot of the posters are Libertarian Party members, how about having the debate at a Libertarian convention? The LP National Convention in 2008 would be a great place to do it, the only thing is that I hate to wait that long.

    I’m willing to participate in this debate. If we want to really make things interesting each side could assemble a panel of experts.

    Any takers? It’s time to put up or shut up.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com e.

    Andy,
    The debate that you speak of is a great idea however, I believe that is something the national LP will not touch. There is probably a state party that may be interested. Think State Convention instead of National Convention and your idea may come to fruition.

  • paulie cannoli

    The debate that you speak of is a great idea however, I believe that is something the national LP will not touch.

    Then they can continue to become more irrelevant. Pussies.

    The Greens aren’t afraid of this issue, and they are growing.

    It’s too bad the LP has its head up its ass about issues like this, since we are better than the Greens on a lot of issues, like many economic policies and gun owners’ rights.

  • Andy

    “Andy, The Debate that you speak of is a great idea however, I believe that is something the national LP will not touch.”

    Good point, the National LP probably doesn’t have the balls to touch something like this. However, such a debate could still be held at the National Convention if the parties involved in the debate rented their own room at the same venue as the national convention or at a nearby venue.

    Regaurdless of when or where the debate is held the challenge still stands. Any takers?

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    One of the basic rules of skeptical inquiry is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Millions of Americans saw planes crash into the WTC on 9/11/2001. Minutes later, they saw those towers collapse.

    The simplest explanation based on the evidence we have is that the plane crash and resulting fire led to the collapse of the towers.

    The “retards” advance the position that something other than those planes caused the towers to collapse. Since that claim is not the simplest explanation, they need to show evidence of those other causes. If the other cause is a “controlled demolition,” evidence of explosive placement, explosive residue in the debris, or somehting similar is required.

    They will not provide that evidence, preferring to shift the burden of proof to those advancing the simple explanation and ask them to prove that the controlled demolition “could not” have been the cause of the collapse.

    Maybe when you obey the rules of debate, people will debate you.

  • Andy

    I have already posted a lot of links here that provide the evidence for controlled demolition as well as other evidence that indicates that 9/11 was an inside job. Here’s another one…

    Thermite Identified As Culprit in WTC Collapse
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

    Still no takers in my public debate challenge. If you people are so confident in your position you should be willing to defend it in a public debate.

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Perfect example Andy.

    Remember, the default explanation is that the towers collapsed due to the two planes we saw hit them and the subsequent fire.

    The alternate explanation you’re advancing is that they collapsed due to controlled demolition using thermite. Unfortunately, half the links in that article don’t work, but here’s a link that does:

    Thermite Theory Debunked.

    Note that the author uses math and physics and photos and evidence. Looking at sparks and saying, “Looks like thermite to me,” is not the same thing.

    Also, I need to take issue with the big lie that underlies all of this bullshit. That is the claim that “planes hitting the towers and the subsequent fires couldn’t have caused them to collapse.” Find me another incident where a jumbo jet plowed right into a skyscraper and it didn’t fall. There isn’t one. When it happens and the towers come down, that’s pretty good evidence that it could happen.

  • IanC

    Nicholas — the closest would be what happened to the Empire State Building way-back-when.

    ‘course, that was a passenger prop-plane and the Empire State Building was so *vastly* over-engineered I doubt a nuke could take it out completely… :)

  • Andy

    “Find me another incident where a jumbo jet plowed right into a skyscraper and it didn’t fall. There isn’t one. When it happens and the towers come down, that’s pretty good evidence that it could happen.”

    How about that jumbo jet that plowed into Building 7 of the WTC complex and caused that building to collapse? Oh, wait a minute, a plane did NOT hit Building 7 yet this building collapsed.

    You are the same guy who posted an article from Popular Mechanics that was written by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff’s cousin Benjamin.

    So, does anyone here have the balls to except my public debate challenge?

  • Andy

    “Nicholas ”” the closest would be what happened to the Empire State Building way-back-when.

    ”˜course, that was a passenger prop-plane”

    It was a B-25 bomber.

    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

  • Andy

    Details of 9/11 Insider Stock Trading Lead Directly To the CIA
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    “Find me another incident where a jumbo jet plowed right into a skyscraper and it didn’t fall. There isn’t one. When it happens and the towers come down, that’s pretty good evidence that it could happen.”

    How about that jumbo jet that plowed into Building 7 of the WTC complex and caused that building to collapse? Oh, wait a minute, a plane did NOT hit Building 7 yet this building collapsed.

    You are the same guy who posted an article from Popular Mechanics that was written by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff’s cousin Benjamin.

    So, does anyone here have the balls to except my public debate challenge?

    The way you avoid the question asked, bring up something unrelated, and then make an ad hominem attack illustrates why debating you would be a waste of time.

    The B-25 is a prop aircraft, not a jet aircraft, and thus not responsive to the question.

  • Andy

    “The way you avoid the question asked, bring up something unrelated, and then make an ad hominem attack illustrates why debating you would be a waste of time.”

    How is the collapse of Building 7 unrelated? You made the claim that planes crashing into Buildings 1 & 2 caused them to collapse but then ignore the collapse of Building 7 which was not hit by a plane and was on the other side of the complex.

    Yes, the B-25 was a prop aircraft, I never claimed otherwise.

    If you don’t want to debate ME, then fine, but how about debating a panel of experts, or how about you assemble a panel of experts on your side and I’ll do the same and we can have them debate in front of an audience, preferably at an LP convention.

    Is there anyone here up to the challenge?

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli

    Find me another incident where a jumbo jet plowed right into a skyscraper and it didn’t fall.

    Find me another incident where a structural steel skyscraper collapsed from fire.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli

    The Greens aren’t afraid of the debate.

    http://gp.org/press/pr_2006_09_11.shtml

    Why is the LP too chickenshit?

  • Andy

    More info on WTC building 7
    http://www.wtc7.net/

    Be sure and watch the video of the collapse.
    http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

  • Andy

    People who are afraid of entering a debate about 9/11 remind me of when Democrats and Republicans are afraid to debate Libertarians.

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Find me another incident where a structural steel skyscraper collapsed from fire.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

    The Madrid Tower was constructed differently

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli

    Fair enough.

    But how about just this part….

    Find me another incident where a structural steel skyscraper collapsed from fire.

    Any example, please?

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    More info on WTC building 7
    http://www.wtc7.net/

    Be sure and watch the video of the collapse.
    http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

    Response to Building 7 Conspiracy Claims

  • Andy

    “Find me another incident where a structural steel skyscraper collapsed from fire.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

    The Madrid Tower was constructed differently”

    So the Madrid Tower is the only steel structure building to catch on fire and not collapse? You act as though it’s common for steel structure buildings to collapse into their own footprints when on fire.

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli
  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Find me another incident where a structural steel skyscraper collapsed from fire.

    Any example, please?

    Nothing like this has ever happened before. That’s why it’s so goddamned stupid for people to stand up and say that two planes and the subsequent fire couldn’t have caused the collapse.

    For a thorough explanation of the collapse and how it worked, see here.

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli

    In 97, you say:

    “Find me another incident where a jumbo jet plowed right into a skyscraper and it didn’t fall.”

    The implication would seem to be that in other examples, skyscrapers fell.

    Now you say:

    “Nothing like this has ever happened before.”

    Granted, a careful reading shows that you never said other skyscrapers fell, but that is not the impression you convey.

    http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

    Lists numerous reasons why the regime’s conspiracy theory is false and the regime is the most likely culprit. These are from “mainstream” media.

  • Andy

    Here’s another example of a plane hitting a building.
    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/11/aircraft-crash.html

    Yes, I know that the plane was not as large as a commercial airliner but this apartment building was not exactly the WTC Towers either.

  • Andy

    War Games Were The Cover For The Operational Execution Of 9/11
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli
  • Andy
  • disinter

    The Greens aren’t afraid of the debate.

    Why is the LP too chickenshit?

    Because they are retards.

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli

    No way! I thought Julian was a rocket scientist?

  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    You know, all this arguing from authority really makes me sick.

    Yep, I’m sure Aristotle and Plato think the Towers came down from fire, too.

    But if you just look at the Towers fall, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that explosions explain the collapses.

    I mean, how many explosions do you need to see before it’s obvious?

    Huge multi-ton steel beams flying outwards and upwards, demolition charges, pulverized dust, mushroom clouds.

    Get real, sheeple.

    9/11 was an inside job.

    And please, don’t get me started on building 7….

    Silly of me to think, but don’t Libertarians oppose mass murder by the executive branch of the federal government?

    Isn’t that a violation of the non-aggression principle?

    Oh, I know, neocons wouldn’t kill 3000 people, right?

    Of course, when it was announced last week that we caused 600,000 deaths in Iraq, what did the neocons do? They argued about how many dead people there were!!

    To the neocons, 3000 dead is just a number.

  • http://c4ss.org/ paulie cannoli
  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    Nicholas;

    I read your article posted above:

    “For a thorough explanation of the collapse and how it worked, see here.”

    That article only explains the initiation of collapse, not the total collapse.

    Here is what I am talking about in more detail:

    Building a Better Mirage
    NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
    of the Crime of the Century
    by Jim Hoffman
    http://www.911research.com/essays/nist/index.html

    Snippits from article:

    “NIST’s investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed…

    snip

    …it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses…

    snip

    NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that “global collapse” was “inevitable” after the “initiation of collapse.”

    I’d like to hear your response to this.

  • jeffrey smith

    Say after me: Occam’s Razor.
    Viewed from the viewpoint of a government-organized conspiracy, 9/11 is way too complicated, and way too risky. For the goals such conspirators would want to achieve, a much smaller, simpler would serve just as well, and leave fewer traces to cover up, and few mouths in need of silencing. It would not be necessary to actually demolish the WTC; it would not be necessary to crash a plane into the US Congress, or anything else. A claim one plane was hijacked–shoot it down because no other way was possible to keep it from hitting an alleged target–achieves the same result with minimum cleanup needed. Or crashing one flight into the Pentagon, and claiming that other teams of jihadis were caught before they could hijack more planes. But planning the destruction of the WTC so carefully? Why bother with all that unnecessary effort? Why allow such an expansion of the risks of being caught, and an exponential increase in the penalties if exposed?

  • jeffrey smith

    (continued):
    I see two legitimate possibilites of government conspiracy in 9/11: a low level informer or double agent who helped organize or even instigate the terrorist planning, and whose existence as a government peon the government wants to keep secret–such things are par for the course if you read the history of dictatorships and the attempts to bring them down; and government entities and individuals trying to hide their own incompentence after 9/11 occurred.
    But the controlled demolition theory is more credible as a thriller in the style of Ludlum or Clancy than as anything that happened in the real world.

  • Andy

    “Viewed from the viewpoint of a government-organized conspiracy, 9/11 is way too complicated, and way too risky.”

    What about the Riechstag Fire? What about the inception of the Federal Reserve System? What about the sinking of the Lusitania? What about Pearl Harbor? What about the Gulf Of Tonkin? What about the sinking of the USS Liberty? What about Iran-Contra? What about the lies told prior to Gulf Wars I & II?

    Governments lie on a daily basis. Governments keep secrets. Look at the Manhattan Project. Many people worked on it but it was kept secret.

    It wouldn’t have taken that many people in the government to know the full plan in carrying out 9/11. Just a few key people in a few key places.

  • jeffrey smith

    Reichstag Fire–small group of arsonists.
    Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, USS Liberty: Possible government coverups were restricted to the circumstances of those incidents, and are not parallel to the 9/11 truth claims. (Unless you want to claim that it was actually US planes disguised as Japanese planes which bombed Pearl Harbor?)
    Manhattan Project: secrecy was backed by military security, and the project itself involved no violation of law.
    Federal Reserve System: nothing very hidden about that.
    Gulf of Tonkin and Gulf War II: government exaggeration of actual events, not germane here.
    Gulf War I: not sure what you mean by lies in that context. And again, not germane, unless you want to allege that it was not Iraqi army that invaded Kuwait, but US Army disguised as the Iraqi army.
    And while only a few people would have needed to know the entire plan, a whole bunch of people would have been necessary to implement it, and anyone of them could have spilled the beans. (to be con’t)

  • jeffrey smith

    The “9/11 truth” claims are based on a complicated plot, criminal in all its aspects, easily exposed, and involving more than was necessary for the supposed conspirators to achieve their objectives. For one thing, it was (for the purposes of the supposed plot) totally unnecessary for the WTC buildings to collapse. Crashing planes into the buildings would have achieved the desire result, whether or not the buildings collapse. Therefore the “controlled demolition” idea is totally offbase.

    Also, given the particular neo-cons who would have been involved, it would be expected that clear “evidence” of Iraqi involvement would have been manufactured to provide a clear cut excuse to invade Iraq. That such evidence is lacking is a pretty good indication that the government conspiracy did not exist in the first place.

  • http://www.truberg.org Alex Truberg

    Jeffrey,

    The collapses provided, by far, the most horrifying and lasting image in the collective mind. It was a major part of the psychological operation (psy-op).

    Even if the planes would have been shocking enough alone, there is very credible evidence showing that the port authority was losing all kinds of money on the WTC buildings, and they were also in serious violation of new abestos regulations which would cost at least a billion dollars to bring up to code. There was a small group of individuals who profitted IMMENSELY from the destruction of the buildings.

    Yes, the plot is complicated… but no amount of skepticism in the government’s ability to carry out 9/11 accounts for the physical evidence. WTC Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were located right underneath the Twin Towers and got absolutely smashed with debris, yet the steel structures remained intact. Building 7 sufferred, by contrast, almost no damage, yet fell COMPLETELY. It doesn’t add up.

    Alex Truberg

  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    Jeff,

    The government says 19 hijackers and Osama pulled off the conspiracy, that’s 20 people.

    This is an “outside job” conspiracy theory.

    An inside job conspiracy always takes fewer people than an outside job conspiracy.

    Say after me: Occam’s Razor.

  • Andy

    As I said above, it wouldn’t have taken that many inside the government to carry out the 9/11 attack. Professor Steven Jones said that as few as 10 people could have wired the buildings with explosives (that is 10 people going in the building multiple times). Maybe one or two key people in security (note that Marvin Bush was involved with security at the WTC) to give out the security clearances and to make sure that people looked the other way. A few key people making sure that NORAD stood down (like Dick Cheney). Maybe a few more people.

    The real far fetched conspiracy theory is that 19 Arab terrorist armed with box cutters and a guy sitting in a cave in Afganistan pulled off the most complicated terrorist attack in history.

    Still no takers for my public debate challenge???

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com e.

    Occams Razor is great – in fact, I agree with it most of the time (but not in this instance). I have to say, I’m with Andy.

  • http://www.911research.com William of Ockam

    It shouldn’t take much grey matter to realize that it’s easier for special agents with security clearance to plant bombs in the World Trade Center, than foreign terrorists.

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    It shouldn’t take much grey matter to realize that it’s easier for special agents with security clearance to plant bombs in the World Trade Center, than foreign terrorists.

    Nice assumption of bombs in the WTC, Rolf.

  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    Nicholas,

    You didn’t answer my question at post # 123.

  • Andy
  • Andy

    “Nice assumption of bombs in the WTC, Rolf.”

    As opposed to your assumption that the official government story is true.

    Check out what the firefighters on the scene witnessed.

    9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosives in the WTC
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

  • Andy

    Here’s some information about William Rodriguez who was a janitor at the WTC and was in the building when the attack happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

  • jeffrey smith

    Add to the “inside conspiracy” not only those who planted bombs in the building, but those who had to arrange for the hijacking and destruction of the planes, those who had to ensure no military shootdowns–that’s already far more than ten or twenty.

    Your version of events would play very well as a Hollywood blockbuster, but not as part of reality.

    Alex–your points regarding the other buildings in the WTC complex is of limited validity. You take into account only what fell from the towers, but ignore the seismic impacts of the buildings collapse.

  • Andy

    “Add to the “inside conspiracy” not only those who planted bombs in the building, but those who had to arrange for the hijacking and destruction of the planes, those who had to ensure no military shootdowns”“that’s already far more than ten or twenty.”

    None of us really know exactly how many people were involved in the conspiracy. It could have been 20, it could have been 30, it could have been 50, who knows? My point is that it wouldn’t have taken a huge number of people in the government to have pulled this off.

    “Your version of events would play very well as a Hollywood blockbuster, but not as part of reality.”

    So you think that 19 Arabs armed with box cutters under the command of a guy in a cave in Afganistan pulling off the greatest terrorist attack in history is a credible story? You must live in fantasy land.

  • Andy
  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    Occam’s razer means your theory is the simplist to explain the facts.

    Occam’s razer does NOT mean you change the facts to make the theory simpler.

    Its a fact that explosives are the best way to explain the collapse of the 3 WTC Towers.

  • Nicholas Sarwark

    Occam’s razer means your theory is the simplist to explain the facts.

    Occam’s razer does NOT mean you change the facts to make the theory simpler.

    Its a fact that explosives are the best way to explain the collapse of the 3 WTC Towers.

    Given that we all saw planes hit the towers, but nobody has found explosives, I think it’s obvious who is changing the facts.

  • http://www.911research.com Galileo Galilei

    Nicholas;

    I’m not changing any facts.

    Many have been arguing to change facts using Occam’s Razer. You don’t change facts with Occam’s razer, you adjust theories.

    I saw the planes hit the towers as well, what does that prove?

    Dr. Stephen Jones says he found evidence of explosives from debris at the crime scene.

    Of course, since the crime scene was not secured (just like at Waco), its hard to prove what happened on 9/11 from crime scene evidence.

    But the videos prove it was a controlled demolition.

    Energy analysis shows that the energy released far exceeds that released by gravity and office fires.

    Please see:

    The North Tower’s Dust Cloud
    Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
    by Jim Hoffman
    October 16, 2003
    http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

    The government has not done energy analysis of the Twin Towers, wonder why?

    Post #123 remains unanswered too

  • Andy

    “Given that we all saw planes hit the towers, but nobody has found explosives, I think it’s obvious who is changing the facts.”

    BYU Physics Professor Finds Thermate in WTC Rubble
    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

  • Andy

    “Given that we all saw planes hit the towers, but nobody has found explosives, I think it’s obvious who is changing the facts.”

    Planes crashing into the building being the only cause of the collapse does not account for finding molten steel in the rubble much later.

    Workers Reported Molten Steel in WTC Ruins
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

  • Andy

    9/11 Conspirators: ’10,000 Men’ or a Few Insiders and Highly Trained Commandos
    http://www.rense.com/general73/command.htm

  • paulie cannoli

    I think you might be the only one still here