kuzadd

Good counterpoint to someone else I know. Even if I am guilty of saying that Katrina is a GOP conspiracy (link). I read through the entire piece, and the point of it was????? All this piece article is , clearly, is an attack, on, largley one person, who made the film -"loose change "and then draws the whole 9/11 movement into the picture, linking them to holocaust denial. It is in essence a piece of propaganda. It uses basic propaganda techniques of name calling: " Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence" or transference: making a connection between alleged holocaust deniers and 9/11 truther How is it a counterpoint to anything?? So you are willing to overlook the fact that it was a good expose of that "one person"? He he... well, in your mind you may see it that way, an "expose", if you may. was it a good expose? All depends what one thinks is a good expose. i guess? Bottom line it is not a counterpoint to anything, and barely qualifies as an expose, IMO. I'll reiterate, it is a good piece of propaganda, meant to sway the reader, not by attacking FACTS, or anomolies, the movie is bringing out, but, meant to smear (name call) the person who made the movie and by extension the larger truth movement. Looking at how the piece is set up....right of the top , it sets the entire premise of the article which it wraps up in the conclusion. It uses a CLEARLY FICTIONAL dialogue, right at the beginning between Avery and "Mr Soprano" , who is a FICTIONAL character in a t.v series. (there is no link to the conversation, that works) and from the reading of it, if Mr Avery said it that way, it is CLEARLY tongue in cheek.( hence a fictional dialogue) I mean can one have a conversation with a fictional character????? Am I to assume, you think that's is possible? The one statement , directly attributed to the conversation between the actor James Gandolfini Is this "James told me, "If you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world." not to be snide, but, wow, how 'cryptic' (facetious, completely) I can dissect the piece further, but, I am not going to bother, all in all, it is an article emplying classic propoganda techniques, name calling ,association. "Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence." This use of propoganda, also demonstrates, or should demonstrate to the reader, weakness. That if the promoter was to engage in an actual factual debate on the subject, the promoters evidence would be weak or non-existent, so the promoter , must engage, in manipulation to sway opinion. Think Bush regime propaganda leading up to the attack on Iraq..... What one should ask oneself, is why this writer, did this piece? It should be obvious. Hint: it's not REALLY, to challenge the questions raised in the movie.

Good counterpoint to someone else I know. Even if I am guilty of saying that Katrina is a GOP conspiracy (link). I read through the entire piece, and the point of it was????? All this piece article is , clearly, is an attack, on, largley one person, who made the film -"loose change "and then draws the whole 9/11 movement into the picture, linking them to holocaust denial. It is in essence a piece of propaganda. It uses basic propaganda techniques of name calling: " Name Calling seeks to make us form a judgment to reject and condemn without examining the evidence" or transference: making a connection between alleged holocaust deniers and 9/11 truther How is it a counterpoint to anything??

check out the book "Spychips" How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID http://www.amazon.com/Spychips-Major-Corpo...k/dp/1595550208 the difference between an implanted spychip, and using a credit card is, when you don't use your credit card, it's not giving any information at all. being implanted, your whereabouts are known 24/7, you infact cannot get away from being tracked. It's a total and complete invasion of privacy and can be easily used as a 'Control Mechanism'. if your implanted rfid tag, is tied to your bank account, let's say.... and you go to an anti-government protest, the government, tracks you at the protest, links you to your bank account and your money is confiscated, because you are now a "terrorist" IMHO: no one in there right mind , could be in support of this.

That must be what the Bush administration uses to generate all the bogus theories, they have put out. ya know like WMD's in Iraq, or Saddam 9/11 connection, or how 'bout the yellow cake from Niger, so many Bush regime 'conspiracies' so little time rofl!!

Ooops , another anomoly!!!!! In Oct 2002, October 30th , to be exact , it was being reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's military committee, died in the police raid on his apartment. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html "Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain. " Let's read that again: "Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain. " OK, now the story continues: "Initially, the joint ISI-FBI plan was to take Shaikh Mohammed alive so that he could be grilled, especially as he was believed to have knowledge of other al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere. However, as a plainclothed officer climbed the stairs toward the third-floor apartment, a hand grenade was thrown, and he retreated. Reinforcements then arrived, and for the next few hours a fierce gun battle blazed. The FBI, still keen to take Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistan Rangers entered the flat, where they found Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair. fast forward to 2007 and allegedly we have the same Kuwaiti national , Al Quaeda number 3. who died in 2002, confessing to committing every crime under the sun, including "killing JFK" LOL. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...ack=1&cset=true WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the Kuwaiti national who is thought to be the highest-ranking Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, told a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last weekend that he was responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a transcript of the hearing. Praise to god, it's another ressurection!!!

Conspiracy theories exist because conspiracies exist. There will always be people who do evil things to take power or money from weaker people. The idea that someone would say conspiracies don't exist is proof of suggestive of MKUltra mind control. Its rediculous, particularly after we all know about the WMD lies to start the war in Iraq. Conspiracies exist because people like you exist. 'sunsettommy': "Conspiracies exist because people like you exist." NONSENSE, plain and simple. One would have to wonder, what, would compel anyone would make such a nonsensical statement??? Conspiracies exist because individuals CONSPIRE to commit acts, wether it be murder or robbery or more. That my friend is what makes a conspiracy what it is.

I notice today officials in the Bush admin are backing away from the claims made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, today it is being claimed he exaggerated. Yesterday, it was a wow, today , it is possible exaggeration. it leads one to think that the "confession" is too full of holes to be deemed credible. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_...rrorist_plots_4

Not at all , it's quite a huge thread to read. I will scan it though, it does look, like alot looking through the last few pages, I don't see much discussion, on the topic at hand. I do note an abundance of ridicule tactics

Hello ! I am up for the debate on 9/11 and prefer no name calling, unless one wishes to display, the inherent weakness in their own arguement. Hey PN!