I saw that on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and laughed my ass off.

Chris Matthews
Keith Olbermann
Jon Stewart
Stephan Colbert

Truth tellers.^

Balled face Liars!
Tucker Carlson
Bill O'reillY
Glenn Beck

The only Conservative newscaster I can watch: John Scarborough

When will you analyze the democratic candidates for things like this?

Keith Olbermann = truth teller.

Thanks for that laugh.

Keith Olbermann = truth teller.

I've got news for you Keith Olbermann is the only truth teller on news today. The rest are conservative liars.

I've got news for you Keith Olbermann is the only truth teller on news today. The rest are conservative liars.

I can't stop laughing. Olbermann is one of the biggest left wings loons on tv today.

Hey Sean? Check out ANY race. Want to see the poof to your Allen blog? Want to see the lie to the Webb Ad?

You are getting too worked up over lies! That is politics. Let her have her delusion. It does not make it real and does not hurt anyone. SO I find your title a bit extreme.

Let her have her delusion. It does not make it real and does not hurt anyone

i dunno...
look what we wound up with last time she 'had her delusion'.

Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both are sadly mistaken.

If you present them with the many suspicious anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in that particular field.

All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart. They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of allies.

Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to "debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure, patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers. That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his name to Paul and became a believer himself.

The saddest part of our struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11 events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying to them in every other facet.

Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors.

We in the 9-11 Truth Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson, Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events.

Recently a new columnist at Counterpunch.com attempted to debunk and defuse the many 9-11 inconsistencies in a feature, In Defense of Conspiracy: 9/11, in Theory and in Fact. Diana Johnstone wrote, "Who profits from the crime?"---but without really acknowledging any of those rich and powerful people who profitted immensely. I emailed her and she responded about a week later.

"Dear readers and critics, Thank you for your comments on my 9/11 piece...Please understand that I have been snowed under by responses -- over 50,000 words, plus attachments and web site references, still coming."

Ouch. The surging tidal wave of the 9-11 truth movement had engulfed another debunker.

But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good honest government.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod, goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us--and who doesn't like a good challenge?---to get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we stubbornly redouble our efforts.

I have one such agitator. His name is Jan Burton. I had considered spamming Jan but what he writes refreshes me, challenges me. And much of what he writes has a great deal of hard truth based on facts.

Jan is no troll, intent on simple provocation. He dares me to call those involved. He prods me. He agitates and exasperates me. If every one of us in the so-called Truth Movenment did as much prodding and goading of our local newspaper editor, US Representative or local structural engineer, would we or would we not eventually wear them down?

As Paul wore down his critics.

I believe--and I may be wrong--that behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people. Should half of them ever became convinced 9-11 was an inside job, they would become as forceful as Paul. A more powerful force for change than most of us have been.

Footnote: In my last column, "OKC & WTC: The Case For Controlled Demolition," I noted the many suspicious fires that ignited in WTC-7 (but did not ignite in the other two buildings alongside WTC-7). The FEMA report at www.WTC7.net is an interesting read. The report emphasizes the fires on floors 11-13, the Security & Exchange offices. Directly beneath the SEC were two floors of Secret Service offices (also on fire). FEMA deduces: "It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1." Yet no fires were reported below the seventh floor and NIST reported no debris had struck the roof. To conclude that the fires may have been purposely set--ARSON-- does not appear to dawn on these government detectives. NIST also notes that one of the first fires reported occured---where else---at mayor Giuliani's command post on the 23rd floor, the OEM, Office of Emergency Management. I suspect certain operatives were torching the building--as any GOOD detective or insurance investigater would have concluded.


video 9/11 Truth: Steel Buildings Don't Collapse From Fire
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsMgYgpyQjI&NR

#7 by Douglas Herman (Anonymous user) Wed, October 11, 2006 10:42 PM Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

So I take it you're one of the more serious cut and pasters?

look what we wound up with last time she 'had her delusion'.

Following the law is not a delusion, but that argument is long since been beaten into a plowshare and is moot.

interesting comments....i found the following interesting and wanted to comment a little further on some of the people mentioned...


Chris Matthews....a great reporter /host...sometimes doesn't play as hard as his show's title would suggest. but chris's genuine enthusiasm for politics and so forth makes watching him a good experience. i wouldn't mind seeing him do his "tell me something i don't know" on hardball like he does on his sunday roundtable show.
Keith Olbermann...a fearless journalist. i remember him from the early CNN days (like 81). keith has always had a knack for summing things up, saying what others are thinking but articulating it so much better, and often with a sense of humor. i remember when he launched ESPN2 with the line "welcome to the end of our careers." his obsessions with tom cruise's baby and such get old fast...and his taunting of oreilly gets stale too after a while. his special comments as of late tend to be right on point lately. painful to hear to some, i'm sure, but that's the way it is.
Jon Stewart...the "fake news" host has been making waves in the real world of news for some time now. not really a journalist, but as a host his interview style and sense of humor is going to make stewart the next carson or at the least, the next leno / letterman.
Stephan Colbert...his impression of bill oreilly's less admirable traits was funny as a bit, kinda funny for a few weeks as a show, but tends to get stale regularly now. but then again, spin offs are rarely as good as the orig., esp when it comes to comedy.



Tucker Carlson...tucker has grown on me over the years. he's still a "tool" but i wouldn't call him a liar. his politics, which he wears on his sleave are conservative libertarian. i've seen tucker do some pretty good journalism and he is a pretty good example of someone who in recent years has stepped away from being a pundit hack.
Bill O'reillY... bill's biggest problem is his ego. in bill's mind, whatever his viewpoint is, is unspun. unfortunately, reality usually discounts that. bill then accuses anyone who points out errors in his facts as an "attack dog" or a hater or something equally as insulting. but i wouldn't call bill a liar. nor would i call him a pundit. and sometimes o reilly and his team actually do some really good work and expose things that might otherwise get left unnoticed. the other night he reccomended barry lynn (sp?) and his book that basically argues the other side of bill's "culture warrior" book. bill wanted his viewers to get a total picture...that was admirable and not common enough in talk/news.
Glenn Beck....pundit and hack,,,sean hannity lite.

there are a few other's i'd like to mention from various sides of the proverbial fence that i have some opinions on...

tony blankley...very conservative, but tens to be pretty damn honest in his reporting. sometimes can fall into the rut of an administration apologist, but usually stys a little above that fray.

pat buchannan....i probablly agree with pat more often than i do most conservative journalists. definitely not a shill for anyone. buchannan's independence makes him interesting to watch, even when i disagree with him.

bill maher....another libertarian often mistaken for a liberal. bill is very entertaining, and sometimes makes some good points. but like o reilly, his ego is huge, and that sometimes gets in the way

george will...an honest broker in the world of conservative journalists. i have read his work since the 80's.

al franken...very good writer,,,and very funny. franken is usually instantly under fire from the right before he opens his mouth, so he makes sure he does tons of fact checking before writing or saying stuff. franken is a self described liberal, and def. has an agenda in mind, but despite that, tends to tell the truth, at least as he sees it and the research shows.

ann coulter....after reading treason, i turned ann off. anytime she is on a show, i change the channel. ann wouldn't know a fact if it was "fact day" and a big giant fact came down, sat on her face and wiggled. she claims because her faithful cult and publishers buy multiple copies of her books and give them away at pundit events, she is right. ann thinks that if i tune in, then she is validated. so i don't watch her, listen to her or read her words which are only thinly veiled hate-speech.





The only Conservative newscaster I can watch: John Scarborough...isn't that joe scarborough? and i believe joe is one of the best conservative journalists out there. definitely a true conservative more interested in facts than power.

as far as the "oh well, they all do it "(lie in political ads) when 1 side is found out is just rhetoric. sometimes both sides aren't equal. i haven't seen webb lying in any ads. the anti allen ad that i reported on last month was pretty darn accurate from what i could tell and research showed. the harris press release is a bald face lie and i can't believe she put that out there, esp in the way it was presented.

one last note,,,,show me where olbermann has lied instead of just throwing mud.

and for those who claim i never comment negatively about democratic practices....go here and see that you are dead wrong....Link

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity (see,www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html, or www.cooperativeresearch.org).

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all – rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a “war without end,” and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now ‘the Americans are in the same fight.’ Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what’s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism – which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor – which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?

Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.


www.dickeatsbush.com/bodelctrc.htm