Patterico's Pontifications


Unbiased Reuters Photo of Cheney

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 5:00 pm

You have almost certainly already seen the Reuters picture of Dick Cheney, but in case you’re one of those people who reads no blog but Patterico (they exist! I’ve talked to them!), you really need to see it:

Not making it up. Looks like I am, but I’m not.

Your captions are hereby solicited. Leave them in the comments.

66 Responses to “Unbiased Reuters Photo of Cheney”

  1. Bush (out of picture): That Reuters reporter is a major league a**hole.

    Cheney: Big time.

    JVW (a29fa6)

  2. Or change Bush’s line to Reuters photographer (or editor).

    JVW (a29fa6)

  3. Where is the big red X? j/k

    Specter (466680)

  4. And which brave little mouse will bell the cat? It’s actually funny. Not the photo — the obvious ineffectual hysteria of the MSM.

    nk (54c569)

  5. Can you imagine the hysteria if Cheney announced he would run for President? I dream of that announcement … I like Cheney very much.

    mike (2c9689)

  6. VP Chaney worries about the idots in the news (sic) business about as much as the President worries about their phony polls. Anyone with an IQ above freezing (F) has figured out the liars and the lies they tell. If I hear or read anything on the news anymore I have to verify it at least two different places not tied to the liars that put the first ‘story’ out, and in most cases it will prove to be just that ‘a story’ without a grain of truth in it. If no news is good news then continue to read the rags or listening to the former MSM.

    scrapiron (a90377)

  7. Mr. Patterico, sir, I appreciate the Amnesty International ad you have here on your site against the US policy for torture. However, just under it you have a supportive ad for Cheney. You do know that Cheney had a closed session with the Senate, don’t you to get support for his torture policy, don’t you? Thank you for the Amnesty International ad here.

    blubonnet (abba9c)

  8. Mr. [Ms.?] Blubonnet, sir [or ma’am]:

    While I appreciate your strained attempt to make Patterico out to be some sort of hypocrite because he doesn’t insist all ads support causes that he personally agrees with, I do wish to inform you that bloggers like Patterico (and Big Lizards) routinely accept any ad that is not overtly offensive to our moral sensibilities.

    We have that same AI ad on our site — and I completely disagree with it. But there is nothing immoral about holding that position, so I let it sail on through. (And before you assert that we just need the money, that ad nets us only $10.07 for the week on Big Lizards — and we just spent $108, including tip, on our favorite sushi restaurant tonight. We’re certainly not hard up for a sawbuck.)

    I would reject an ad from the American Nazi Party or the Communist Party; I would not reject ads from Amnesty International, the NAACP, or the Democratic Party. But I might very easily run an ad for the Daily Kos right above an ad for Michael Savage — if either was insane enough to think such an ad would be a good expenditure of their hard-earned dollars — and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash.

    Neither could you assume I agree with either one of them. Yeesh.


    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  9. Here’s a caption: “No, I don’t really advocate torturing the quail before shooting them.”

    Media bias? I could have missed it, but I haven’t seen anything on MSNBC or CNN about the thousands of protesters in Chicago over the illegal immigration bill.

    Also, I don’t see anything on either major MSM station about this via Digby:

    Bush’s Domestic Policy advisor, Claude Allen, inexplicably resigned a while back, and today it was revealed that the reason was that he had been arrested for shoplifting. Allen is not just some nobody. He was one of Bush’s closest advisors and was paid at the very highest salary level along with Rove and Bartlet and a very few others.

    ‘Looks like there’s media bias on CNN and MSNBC to me.

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  10. Update: OK, CNN just mentioned the Chicago demonstration. But I’m still waiting for the Claude Allen story. Sometimes the MSM lags way behind the blogs, so I may have just jumped the gun here. We’ll see.

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  11. Mr ab Hugh wrote:

    We have that same AI ad on our site — and I completely disagree with it. But there is nothing immoral about holding that position, so I let it sail on through. (And before you assert that we just need the money, that ad nets us only $10.07 for the week on Big Lizards — and we just spent $108, including tip, on our favorite sushi restaurant tonight. We’re certainly not hard up for a sawbuck.)

    I always wondered what those ads actually netted. Of course, if they are based on site traffic, if I had them, instead of $10.07, I’d probably get 2¢.

    Maybe that’s why we spent only $78.00 on sushi last night.

    Dana (71415b)

  12. If our esteemed host had a category called kerfuffles, I’d say that’s where the Cheney photograph ought to go. The President and Vice President are the most photographed people in the world, frequently at events with some sort of banner in the background, and that such a really humorous thing came out of one is unsurprising.

    Dana (71415b)

  13. As usually stunts such as this photograph say so much more about the MSM than the Bush administration. In a word the photograph is sophomoric. If it were shown in a humor column we might roll our eyes and think that it wasn’t particularly funny but we would not give it a second thought. When it appears in the news section it is inappropriate. I thought the reason why the newspaper photographers take hundreds of pictures is to make sure that they have a good picture to show, not to get a picture that they think will embarrass the administration. Of course that would assume that they were a serious news organization.

    Richard (b6db20)

  14. Just curious, blu, any idea what Cheney’s “torture policy” would be?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  15. “Can you imagine the hysteria if Cheney announced he would run for President? I dream of that announcement … I like Cheney very much.”

    His shooting a lawyer by itself is worth 20 million votes. (Smile)

    nk (47858f)

  16. Don’t bother Harry…once confronted with fact blu goes on to some other conspiracy theory….

    Specter (466680)

  17. Specter, true. I’m just the disagreeable type I guess. When one argues that we attacked ourselves on 9/11, that we live in a fascist state, that we target civilians or journalists in Iraq, and that we are the source of all evil in the world, it just sort of, you know, brings out my argumentative nature. I hope that doesn’t mean I’m a bad person or anything.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  18. Harry, You asked about Cheney and torture. Here’s a couple of sources.

    Patterico, I’m sorry it was construed as a derision. That was not my intent. However, I do come here as everyone else to share knowledge. I appreciate your hosting us all here, giving this opportunity to exchange what we know.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  19. Psy,

    The NY Times has the Claude Allen story, dated yesterday.

    WASHINGTON, (March 10) – A former top White House aide was arrested on Thursday in the Maryland suburbs on charges that he stole merchandise from a number of retailers, the police in Montgomery County, Md., said Friday.

    The former aide, Claude A. Allen, 45, was President Bush’s top domestic policy adviser until resigning last month. Known as a rising conservative star, he previously served as deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, and in 2003 the White House announced its intention to nominate him to a seat on the federal appeals court based in Richmond, Va. Democrats raised questions about the nomination, and it never came to a vote.

    The police said Mr. Allen was seen on Jan. 2 leaving a department store in Gaithersburg, Md., with merchandise for which he had not paid.

    The AP has President Bush’s reaction:

    “When I heard the story last night, I was shocked, and my first reaction was one of disappointment, deep disappointment – if it’s true – that we were not fully informed,” Bush said Saturday morning. “Shortly thereafter, I felt really sad for the Allen family.”

    “If the allegations are true, Claude Allen did not tell my chief of staff and legal counsel the truth, and that’s deeply disappointing,” the president said at the White House following an event on Iraq. “If the allegations are true, something went wrong in Claude Allen’s life, and that is really sad.”

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  20. actus, see, the exact point we’ve been making all along.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  21. 911 was an inside job–at least to the extent that the symmetrical collapses of Towers 1 and 2–and the symmetrical collapse of WTC7 could not have occurred without the buildings being rigged with demolition materials in advance of the planes hitting two of the three buildings. The first clue that the FEMA/911 Commission report was hiding things was Larry Silverstein’s interview on PBS in July 2002 when Silverstein admitted that WTC7 was “pulled”–buildings jargon for imploded into its foundations. FEMA makes no such reference in its report–and, in fact, the 911 Commission report attempts to explain WTC7 collapse as fire-weakened structural steel, the same explanation given for “progressive collapse” of the towers. Do we believe the building owner, Silverstein–or, do we believe the 911 Commission version of the collapse of WTC7?

    The next domino in the chain of proving 911 Commission lies/coverup involves eutectic change of the massive structural steel supports in the basements of all three buildings. We need to look at FEMA Appendix C at

    This document establishes that a chemical/heat attack on the structural steel did occur–and the only reasonable hypothesis for the finding of sulfidation of the structural steel is that ‘thermite’ was used to collapse the central core columns. Incredible, you say? Look at the aerial photograph within the article entitled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse” by Steven Jones, PhD at this website: Notice the pyrotechnique cloud of vaporized cement and the white hot ends of structural steel columns flinging out of the center of the building. Additional white hot areas are visible through the concrete dust clouds. Note the photo of the crane bringing red-hot iron out of the basement levels 6 and 7 of the towers. After eight weeks, the temperatures in those basement levels were still in excess of 1400 degress–not explainable by jet fuel heat or by friction. Again, the only hypothesis to fit this condition of sulfidation of steel and the blast furnace temperatures is that the building supports were rigged for implosion. Further evidence supporting this include: 1) no steel structures in the world up until 911 have collapsed symmetrically in this “progressive collapse” (NIST’s term) fashion, 2) WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it had the same sulfidated iron in its basement, 3) core supports–47 box beams 36 X 16 X 4 inches thick structural steel which melts at 2800 degrees–were leveled, yet the weaker exterior steel structures of the towers were left partially standing, 4) FDNY knew 10 minutes before WTC7 fell to clear the area. This is a controlled demolition.

    I do know planes hit. The first building to fall had a fire that was nearly under control–if we are to believe FDNY tapes of firemen who died in that building. Fire and structural experts complained that the evidence–the structural steel–was hauled away too fast without adequate forensic analysis. The same ‘cleaners’, Controlled Demolition, cleaned the OK City federal building site. Twice during the OK City cleanup, bomb squads were called to take out bombs WITHING the Murrah building ruins–this on OK City local television news and NEVER MADE NATIONAL NEWS.

    Start with Larry Silverstein’s admission that WTC7 was pulled–investigate with your powers of discernment rather than being prejudiced by the President’s admonition not to consider any “outrageous conspiracy theories” and you’ll shudder knowing we’ve been duped in the official explanation.

    Why didn’t NORAD meet at least one of the four planes? Many, many unanswered questions–and those who have the courage and the curiosity will know that 911 was a crime against America which MAY have had 18 Islamic radicals as the instigators, but the collapse of the buildings had inside help.

    FEMA Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination
    Marvin Bush, Director of Securacom
    Todd Walker III, CEO of Securacom

    The above and many other unanswered questions lead me to demand that an independent commission reopen investigations into the 911 event in its entireity. We’ve been lied to. The course of history arises in this all-too-convenient event that all too closely resembles the burning of the Reichtag in 1933 and the resulting call to nationalism and demonization of Jews.

    whole2th (5dff99)

  22. NK suggested:

    His shooting a lawyer by itself is worth 20 million votes. (Smile)

    So, how many votes would he have gotten if he’d actually killed him?

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  23. Mr Arthur wrote:

    Specter, true. I’m just the disagreeable type I guess. When one argues that we attacked ourselves on 9/11, that we live in a fascist state, that we target civilians or journalists in Iraq, and that we are the source of all evil in the world, it just sort of, you know, brings out my argumentative nature. I hope that doesn’t mean I’m a bad person or anything.

    No, it simply means that you are a dupe of the greedy capitalists and the fascist propaganda which misinform you that you live in a free and prosperous country. You are really mired in oppression and poverty, and it’s only all of that money and freedom which is blinding you to that fact!

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  24. Nos. 6 & 16 I agree with you about Cheney. I would like to see Rumsfeld as his VP. Imagine the reaction!!

    Deacon Bleau (730767)

  25. Not that there’s anything wrong with that … :-)

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  26. Actus beat me to it: check out this picture of Harry Reid.

    Tom (f35e9a)

  27. If you look verrrrrry closely at the foreheads of Schumer, Reid and Durbin you will see a verrrrrry tiny little 6 on each …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  28. Whole2th, you might want to have a look at the following:

    TribeHasSpoken (5bc778)

  29. Oops, the link didn’t come up:

    TribeHasSpoken (5bc778)

  30. Link

    TribeHasSpoken (5bc778)

  31. whole2th:

    Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

    Patterico (de0616)

  32. Dana, re your comment #24:

    “So, how many votes would he have gotten if he’d actually killed him?”

    I can only hope that people only say that they want us dead and do not actually want to kill us. (Smile)

    nk (54c569)

  33. whole2th,
    So I guess the conspiracy edited out the rhythmic “thumps’ that would have been heard during the ‘controlled’ demolition of these buildings from every video and audio record of the event?
    And I am sure that, as these crews came in and stripped down the drywall and other coverings to get to the structural members, to plant these thermite devices on those members, that nobody in the entire WTC populace would have questioned it.
    Finally, the impact of the planes were so precisely placed on the building that it wouldn’t destroy the complex triggering system of such a covert operation?
    P, just rewind that Cuckoo clock for me would ya’?

    paul (464e99)

  34. Ahhhh….blu’s mentor has arrived.

    Whole2th – You better strip the shhetrock from all of the walls in your home – check all the structural members. Because now that you put your name online (and you know with all the illegal taps THEY know who you are) THEY are coming after you. As I told blu – you better take apart key pieces of electronics in your home – TV, phones, sattelite links, cable, computer, radio – heck even your microwave – and check for bugs. THEY are watching you…..

    Specter (466680)

  35. whole2th, I and several others have responded to blu’s multiple posts on this Dana’s site about precisely this subject. Your post is so full of nonsense, inuendo, unsubstantiated allegations and just plain erroneous information, that it would take several hours’ effort to answer it.

    Personally, I’ve already devoted far too much effort wrestling this pig.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  36. oops …this and Dana’s site…

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  37. I have forwarded blu and whole2th’s information to the authorities, who can take the necessary actions.

    (Just kidding, guys. As far as you know.)

    Patterico (de0616)

  38. Watch out blu and whoe2ndths, you might get what O’Reilly threatened: ‘”a little visit” from “Fox security.”’

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  39. Our fascistic esteemed host wrote:

    I have forwarded blu and whole2th’s information to the authorities, who can take the necessary actions.

    (Just kidding, guys. As far as you know.)

    Well, that was always one of my points with those who claimed that President Bush has created a fascist country here: how is it that they are walking around free, and able to say anything that they want, in public, with no feat of reprisal from the government.

    You see, I love people like Blu and whole2th: it is their presence which tells us that our government is not what they believe it to be.

    Dana (71415b)

  40. I went to one of the sites that whole2th recommended and gleaned this tidbit:
    Roughly 3,000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.
    If we make up one cutting charge for every four pounds they would have had to place seven hundred and fifty [750] individual charges
    yeah. right.
    The reason these folks walk around free is because the tin foil hats keeps the Feds from reading their minds….

    paul (464e99)

  41. Excellent point, paul, and believe me you have just scratched the surface of the nonsense you will find at these sites. Dana’s point is well taken also.

    I have yet to find any comments by a “for real” civil engineer, explosives expert, materials expert, fire expert, or any other germaine expert. Plenty of PhDs in everything but, but no one making a cogent argument with actual facts that causes me to say: “Gee, this guy might just know what he’s talking about.”

    How cynical do you have to be to believe that any president of either party would be truly evil enough to be responsible for such a heinous act against his or her fellow citizens? And to actually believe that the conspiracy would never see the light of day? I guess the first attack on the WTC was done by Clinton? And we even managed to get UBL to claim credit on tape no less. A tape that we had to invade Afghanistan to find. But then we all know he still works for the CIA so … how tough could that have been after all?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  42. Yeah, Harry, and George W. Bush is an honest man. Does science mean anything to you? You do know that massive intelligence secrets operations have been carried out by our government before, don’t you? Involving hundreds of people, with blind faith in the operation! You all are very naive’. As this country adopts crazy new policies, like torture, and spying on citzenry in numbers Alberto Gonzales even ackowledged as being far more wide spread than was divulged originally, you just nod obligingly. Nixon used it for political maneuvering. What makes you think Bush is genuine. Nothing he has done so far has shown to be genuine. He is a sleazy war profiteer, as is Cheney. You really don’t know the half of what this country has done, because you are blindly trusting simply because the conservatives are in charge. In case you haven’t noticed everything from our integrity in the world, to our job crisis (illegal aliens, and outsourcing), our economy, a failed war (ask a soldier, majority say so), national debt, DC corrpuption, absolutely everything has turned to feces.

    Dana, I have stated before that fascism among its negative characteristics, freedom of speech was NOT one of the 14 characteristics listed. Yes, you can have freedom of speech in a fascist state. I will post once again the article which is brief and very telling. You all decide for yourselves if we fit in to it.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  43. Many rhetorical questions, few facts, and no argument. Par for the blu course.

    What does “Does science mean anything to you?” mean? If I actually heard or read some “science” from the many conspiracy theory sites you’ve linked me to, it might mean something.

    I guess I just don’t find the “arguments” of various Drs of Theology (or Philosophy, Sociology, English or underwater basket weaving for that matter) alleging to “debunk” the 9/11 commission findings, and instructing us on the finer points of stealth demolition of 110 story buildings, civil engineering, structural failure, materials or any number of other subjects about which they lack any professional or academic ability to comment, compelling “scientific” evidence of an evil government conspiracy.

    I’m curious how it is that you are so certain that we are the naive ones. I’m 57 years old, blu. I quit being naive about 40 years ago. Perhaps you should consider the alternative explanation …

    Bush is a “sleazy war profiteer, as is Cheney”? Prove it. You haven’t yet. Inuendo and unsubstantiated allegations are not proof.

    I “don’t know the half of what this country has done”? Oh, really? Are we back to the “naive thing” again?

    “Our job crisis”? Latest job creation numbers were 243,000 jobs created in one month. Some crisis. “Our economy”? The Europeans can only hope for economies as strong as ours. “a failed war (ask a soldier, majority say so)”? Been talking with the soldiers again, blu? Interesting, given that reenlistment rates are booming and we’re meeting our recruiting goals. Maybe I just talk to the wrong soldiers. Most soldiers I know actually believe we’re accomplishing something in Iraq, even in spite of the recent attempts by Iran- and Syrian-sponsored AQ to foment sectarian violence.

    “absolutely everything has turned to feces”? Wow. I guess I need to get out more.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  44. hey blu – over at “” a learned professor (a professor mind you) of Khama Sutra has proof that Bush planted a nuclear (nucular) device to cause the tsunami. Better go study it, cuz you know since it is a professor and because it is on the web it must be true. Only the naive would believe differently…..

    Specter (466680)

  45. Sulfidated iron in the basements of all three WTC buildings per the FEMA report–only explainable by the use of thermite

    Admission by owner, Larry Silverstein that WTC7 was imploded–contradicted by the FEMA report which says it was weakened by fire.

    No steel structure of their kind had ever collapsed due to fire–yet three did on that day.

    Hasty removal of the crime scene evidence taken to smelters.

    All the above forensic facts are sidestepped by name-calling.

    This group is a lynch mob with their heads fully in the sand.

    There were several building evacuations in the two months preceding 9/11. Crews were in the buildings supposedly replacing the network wiring.

    A troubling video that you propagandized, Stepford Republicans can’t watch without blacking out is: “Loose Change” This downloadable documentary comes from a chief tinfoil expert–and has a good portion of credible material.

    Again, call names, make snide remarks and be part of the party of fascists who are shredding our Constitutional liberties and leading America into the New American Century and One World Order.

    whole2th (398afc)

  46. Torturing and spying on citizenry isn’t new. Of course, neither is spying on one’s enemy.

    sharon (fecb65)

  47. whole2th,

    Are you even willing to consider the possibility that substandard construction may have been the cause? I know that lawsuits were filed against the architects, engineers and builders after 9/11 but I have not kept up with that story. Why look for sabotage when cutting corners is far more likely?

    nk (131c46)

  48. All the above forensic facts are sidestepped by name-calling.

    No, several of us have countered these “forensic facts” before with argument, fact and logic. I don’t sense that you’re in the listening mode any more than blu and others were when we went there the first time. Why bother again?

    This group is a lynch mob with their heads fully in the sand.

    No, I don’t think any of us belong to “a lynch mob”. No, I don’t think those of us who disagree with your take on the “forensic facts” are the ones with our heads in the sand. But then I don’t suppose you’d ever “sidestep” any “forensic facts” by resorting to name calling, would you? “Lynch mob”? Perhaps you meant “Lunch mob” and simply mis-typed?

    There were several building evacuations in the two months preceding 9/11. Crews were in the buildings supposedly replacing the network wiring.

    No, it is quite a different thing to replace network wiring than to wire a building for destruction by implosion. There is substantially more wiring involved for an implosion, it must be placed in fundamentally different areas than would network wiring, and there’s, you know, large quantities of plastic explosives involved also. I’m quite comfortable in asserting that your non-sequitur here doesn’t pass the common sense test. Though this was an excellent example of the sort of nonsense that we’ve argued on this topic before.

    I use the term “nonsense” not to “sidestep” any “forensic evidence” but to characterize your implication appropriately. It’s not that you’ve made an argument, you’ve simply flung some horse hockey against the barn door in the hopes some might stick. A technique with which we’re all quite familiar here, but it’s still nonsense nonetheless.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  49. nk, just to pick a nit, it’s not necessary for there to have been substandard construction for the buildings to have collapsed. Both towers were hit by wide body jet airplanes weighing on the order of 300,000 pounds (plus or minus) and full of jet fuel for a several hour flight to the west coast. I would argue that no building can be economically designed to survive intentional destruction of this nature.

    My son, a civil engineer (structural) by profession, had the privilege to attend a lecture by one of the structural engineers who participated in the design of the WTC. At the time it was a fairly unique design, particularly with respect to the structural loading. It was actually designed to withstand an impact from a smaller airliner and actually could have survived the impact of these two wide body airplanes were it not for the failure of the fire suppression system. The primary failure mode was that the airliner took out the preponderance of the sprinkler system which allowed the fire to propogate beyond design limits, resulting in the weakened steel and subsequent collapse as the weight of the airliners overloaded the floors.

    The buildings collapsed straight downward because of the way they addressed floor loading in the basic design. Once a single floor collapsed onto the next, a cascade resulted. Add to that point today’s environmental restrictions forbidding the use of asbestos, which would have protected the steel from fire damage, and the result was inevitable.

    Even UBL, who has claimed credit for the attack on a video captured in Afghanistan, was apparently surprised at the level of destruction.

    For anyone to actually believe that our government was complicit in the destruction of these buildings simply to start wars in Afghanistand and Iraq is beyond my comprehension. But then, for some, the hatred is so blinding to simple common sense …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  50. When discussing the findings on the pile we have to remember that the building was not an empty shell.
    1.Who knows what flammable compunds were in use or stored in the building.
    2. It is extrememly difficult to predict what compounds would be formed under the time,temp and pressures available on the pile that day.
    Finally, spend some time watching a show on building implosions. You’ll find a remarkable commonality in practices amongst all the different contractors. I hope you’ll be struck by the fact that this technique doesn’t always work EVEN WITH OVERT AND OBVIOUS Preparation.

    paul (464e99)

  51. That is a consideration, Paul. However, it is unusual, don’t you think that all of those compounds were so evenly distributed, to bring about the smooth implosion style free fall? I’d prefer to see that as a reality, what you suggested. I respect your willingness to do some analytical study on it, rather than just dismiss it, because it seems so unfathomable.

    Also, there are many other points to consider to invalidate the official story. The building collapse is just one. If you go to the scholars for 911 truth site. Click onto the many other reasons to doubt the official story, it might surprise you.

    The argument that there were no professionals within the field required to determine the lack of validity of the government story is wrong. There are plenty there on the site. There are explosive experts, architects, engineers of a variety of sorts, pilots, physicists (quite a few of them), ex-NASA scientists, many people that worked for the government.

    Also, there are many people with accomplishments behind them that may not be pertinent to the subjects of hand, but by having impressive credentials, just lending their own impressive crediblility in that regard is their point, by dismissing the assumption as so many do, that it is just a bunch of wild-eyed maniacs with imagination going overboard.

    You could find a person that might be “fringe” among them, but not many. It is not enough to hang your hat on the premise, of it being a bunch of “whackos”.

    I looked up Whole2th on the internet to see who he is, and I see that he is a dentist, not a crazy unemployed lunatic, as many would assume. Obviously not pertinent to the topic required, but not in the “hippie nut job” category, as so many would like to believe.

    So, wander around on that site and then decide.

    Also, know that there are many other credible sites that don’t have the all scholars behind it, but make a compelling argument nevertheless. It is a fast growing movement. More people are realizing it is a valid argument these courageous people have presented.

    They are people more interested in getting the truth out there, than preserving their own status, not daring to be called (gasp) a conspiracy theorist. They have the guts to do the required questioning.

    Now I expect Harry to lay on a slew of derison, and general tsk-tsk-ing.

    blubonnet (e8293f)

  52. Before I go traipsing off into the world of conspiracy theory ‘facts’I’d like to make a few points;
    First, it is the ingrained natural tendency of the human brain to create patterns out of chaotic events. We have all seen the face of a devil in a smoke cloud, bunny rabbits in cumulonimbus clouds etc. In fact, our dreams are woven into nonsensical plot lines as our brain discharges the thoughts and sensations of the day before.
    Second, we are natural learners. When faced with an event [desirable or not] we seek the pre-cursor or omen that will fortell the same outcome.
    Finally we are in awe of our own great acheivements. The election of a beloved President, the erection of a great tower. And when a meager event or being brings down such a mighty symbol which we hold in awe, we cannot believe it. How can a mere jetliner bring down The World Trade Center after all. And were That bulding to fall how could it merely collapse unto itself?
    How could a mere man kill The President of the United States from such a distance?
    Why of course there must be a larger machination at hand! And there is.
    Fate and S**t dumb luck.
    Not very scientific I’m afraid, and not that emotionally satisfying. But We have an old saying in the woods;
    “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.”
    But as I depart into the blus’ world looking for the whole2th, I just wanted to point my philosophy out. cuz even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
    Enough cliches see ya’

    paul (464e99)

  53. Now I expect Harry to lay on a slew of derison, and general tsk-tsk-ing.

    Of course, blu, you know better, given the hours I’ve devoted to patiently answering the “facts” associated with each of these sites and attempting without success to prove a negative. Perhaps you’ve mistaken my disagreement, accompanied by logical analysis and facts as “derision”. Unfortunate, that. Nor would I think it a fair characterization of my arguments and facts to the contrary, “general tsk-tsk-ing”. I just strongly disagree with your characterization of the events of 9/11 as a self-imposed wound.

    So, Whole2th is a dentist. I suppose that qualifies him to pass on the conspirational horse hockey as well as if he had a PhD in Theology … Your point, however, is what? That because some normally rational functional people seem to have been taken in by the conspiracy theorists, their arguments are to be believed? Sorry, it doesn’t matter who believes the nonsense, it remains nonsense. And, honestly, it doesn’t matter who serves this cool-aid, I will not take a sip.

    paul has it right in this case. Sometimes weird, even unexplainable things … just happen. Of course we should expect weird, unexplainable things to happen when we fly large airplanes into buildings I would guess, since there’s really no way to engineer for that to a level of certainty – too many variables.

    They are people more interested in getting the truth out there, than preserving their own status, not daring to be called (gasp) a conspiracy theorist. They have the guts to do the required questioning.

    Of course this statement presumes the answer within itself, doesn’t it? And I can’t help but wonder how you think anyone’s “status” is at risk by posting these ideas? Will the “thought police” roust them from their homes in the middle of the night?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  54. Harry, I stated earlier, but I will state again, the point I was making about the credentials of these people, is that generally assumed, I’ve noticed among the right wingers is the pre-determined conclusion that the extreme left leaning are unemployed nut jobs with, nothing to do. That would be the attitude I’d expect from all of the very right wing sorts, therefore, I have to make that point before it is thrown at me in the usual derision style.

    You stated in an earlier post that among those of us that see things in this perspective of unacceptance of the government story by the abundance of irregularities, presented by more probing analysis of professionals, none were pertinent to the fields necessary to make a judgement of the tower collapse. You will see in my above post, that you were wrong on that. There are plenty among those scholars that have objectively looked at it, whose professional expertise are exactly the right ones to make those judgements.

    Yes, by the way, your making sport of me by your comments, among other right wingers was a derision tactic, proclaiming my inability to use logic in my accessment of reality. That was in previous topics with other individuals. I really was not offended, but it saddens me that it lessens the liklihood of anyone considering what is presented that isn’t in the stream of common thought. Closing minds out of fear of the same treatment, and a comfort in believing that to stick with the perspective they are already with, there is no need to think beyond that common perception.

    But, as an evangelical, your logic has you being swept up in the rapture soon, so I guess you don’t have much to worry about at all. Jesus will keep you safe, and George W. Bush also. and making torture policy of America, will be forgiven.

    You have your logic and I have mine. I’ll listen to the scholars in the fields necessary to decide. Physicists, architects, explosive experts, engineers have some credibility in my book. Also, the many other facts presented are simple to acknowledge that don’t even require degrees to see the gaping holes in the government story. But, whose got the guts to look? Not you.

    blubonnet (052508)

  55. Not to belabor the point, but …

    But, as an evangelical, your logic has you being swept up in the rapture soon, so I guess you don’t have much to worry about at all. Jesus will keep you safe, and George W. Bush also. and making torture policy of America, will be forgiven.

    Here we go again for the umpteenth time. As I’ve said before on more than a single occasion, my personal beliefs really have nothing at all to do with any of my arguments. If I was making an argument from the Bible then perhaps you’d have a point, but unless that’s either the topic or germaine to the topic being discussed, it’s not part of any argument I choose to make and is therefore totally and unequivocally irrelevant.

    You have your logic and I have mine.

    This is the primary problem with your arguments and logic. There is no “my logic” vs “your logic” dichotomy. Logic and facts are what they are. They are not relative and they are not personal to the arguer. Surely you realize that if “you have your logic” and “I have mine” there is no basis whatsoever upon which to base any argument and there is no concomitant truth.

    This is a fundamental problem with relativism. Nothing is right or wrong because everything is right. So, from your expressed point of view, it makes no sense to call Bush a liar or to suggest that I am deceived by the lies of the government because, after all, “I have my own truth”, Bush has his own truth, Cheney has his own truth, and the nice thing is that we’re all correct. What I believe is logical and true by definition because I choose it to be so. This is where “your own logic” naturally leads. It strips the term “lie” from any meaning whatsoever. The problem is that in the real world one of us is correct and one of us is not.

    I’ll listen to the scholars in the fields necessary to decide. Physicists, architects, explosive experts, engineers have some credibility in my book.

    As they do in mine. We just simply disagree that the preponderance of the people making the arguments you cite come from this group. If there were a significant number of structural engineers, materials experts, explosive experts and the like making these claims, I would give them some credence. There just simply aren’t. Even those with advanced degrees have chosen to assert “facts” that are far outside the realm of their professional expertise.

    Further, since there are far more experts in these fields that disagree with your position, how do you differentiate? If you look carefully at your own “derisive” comments about those who support “the government’s analysis” you’ll note that you routinely question their veracity and assert their naivete. You then accuse me of “derision” when I simply have the audacity to logically question your chosen “experts” and their “facts”. Not very intellectually honest in my opinion.

    Also, the many other facts presented are simple to acknowledge that don’t even require degrees to see the gaping holes in the government story.

    Again, we simply disagree on the “gaping holes in the government story”. You claim they are there. I assert that the government doesn’t need a “story” because the clear facts and any level of honest analysis speak for themselves.

    But, whose got the guts to look? Not you.

    Unfortunately another in a long line of unsubstantiated allegations about my personal “intestinal fortitude” that I’ve reminded you on several occasions is not within the purvue of your knowledge. One does wonder, however, if I’ve not “…got the guts to look”, how is it that I’m able to discuss the details of these various conspiracy theories and to question the logic and facts posted on the various web sites?

    It seems that when one disagrees with your take on reality and “your logic”, it renders that person “gutless”. Interesting …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  56. You have assaulted my sense of logic on other occasions. The reason I bring up your belief system regarding your religious stance, is because from a logical perspective it may seem quite outlandish. Ordinarily, that subject would be too personal and ought not be brought up, but by your choosing to speak of my conversation points as “horse hockey” and “nonsense”, I need to seriously question your sense of reasoning about Jesus who by the evangelical perspective is going to come along some time soon now and fly all you evangelicals away with him. The rest of us who are not believers are just going to suffer, apparently by your perspective the “justified” horrors that are to become of the world, because, well, gee, this is fair, huh (???) because we are not Christians. So what if we are doing what we can to stop the lies of the war, to stop the deaths of innocents, and the soldiers who were lied to, but we deserve to suffer. Logic???

    As far as your engaging me in this discussion, you have pretty much thought of reasons to discount it. If you had actually reviewed the site and the material, I believe you would at least be willing to further question it, but you simply dismissed it. It would be painfully embarassing to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist. There are an ample amount of the necessary professionals by the way, on the site that have the expertise to make a solid reasoning for their position. It is obvious again that you have not gone there to see that.

    Of course, since this is such a damning story, the 911 expose’ that is coming more into the conciousnesses of Americans, there has been efforts to squelch it. You still do not realize the information control that is attempted constantly by this present government. Here is an article by the BBC that might alarm you.

    blubonnet (b42481)

  57. First dispatch from the conspirosphere:
    1.Why isn’t there any discussion in all this research about ‘flashover’?
    2. There seems to be a dearth of research from Fire Science types. Why is that?
    Like all research I guess it all leads to more questions.

    paul (464e99)

  58. Paul, Excuse my ignorance, but what is “flashover”?

    blubonnet (c9da42)

  59. Google ‘flashover’ to learn about how many different behaviors there are in fire events.
    The people who write THESE articles are the ones we should be discussing this issue with no?

    paul (b73d40)

  60. Paul, I googled up “flashover” and decided it was a course I didn’t want to embark on, at this point in time. Maybe I will though later. I did look up to see what other fire experts had to say on 911. Here are some points made by experts on it below. Also, I ought to mention that in the posting above of the scholars for 911 truth, there was a firefighter among them, as well. These other firefighters’ comments might pique your interest though.

    blubonnet (808b29)

  61. Darn it. The correct email address ,the last of the three above (I typed hurriedly and screwed it up) is:

    blubonnet (86405d)

  62. While I understand that the jet fuel alone was not enough to cause the steel to melt, I am still struck by the lack of discussion on the contents of the building.
    The little jibe about kerosene lanterns is typically disingenous as the kerosene is combusted ,in that case, in a controlled and planned manner. I mean really, Acetylene Gas combined with oxygen DOES melt metal and yet the torch and the welder don’t melt.
    As for discussion about squibs of smoke, we have to admit that if the floors were pancaked down atop one another, wouldn’t they , like bellows’ ‘squirt’ the smoke and air from the floor below it?
    I don’t know Blu, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. To quote Freud.

    paul (464e99)

  63. Paul, Of course, I am convinced thoroughly because of the many sources, as well as the credible bunch that present it. I would like to say thank-you though for having the open-midedness to take a real look at it, instead of going into heckle-sporting mode.

    The first time I took it seriously was when I read a book review from an ex-CIA agent on the book “The New Pearl Harbor, 9-11, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration”. This ex-CIA agent, Robert Baer, wrote the book review. It was apparent that he was convinced it was an inside job. Then I read that book. It was a dry, but thorough analysis. 40 substantial pieces of evidence were noted. The bibliography was impressive, in other words, sources were plentiful.

    Here is an interesting piece I found recently also. It starts out: “The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 testified Monday, he spent almost four weeks trying to warn US officials about the radical Islamic student pilot but ‘criminal negligence’ by superiors in Washington thwarted a chance to stop the 9-11 attacks.”

    Incidentally Richard Clark the terrorism czar in the Whitehouse had the exact same complaints.

    blubonnet (5acdcd)

  64. Darn it. Big surprise (sarcasm) I typed in the address above wrong, and now I cannot find it. Maybe it was pulled. The story is all over the news today though. Here is another one. I will be CAREful in typing. I get excited sometimes when I’m conveying info and bungle things. This time it should work.

    blubonnet (86405d)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4092 secs.