Kenn Thomas says what?

[DBTrek]

This dude . . . I don't even know where to start with this guy. He shows up talking sense and sounding reasonable. He even addresses the phenomena I was talking about in another thread where conspiracy-heads have a tendency to blame one figurehead for all evils (i.e. It's all Bush/Clintons fault). He then goes on at length talking about how silly it is for the "troofers" to blame Bush for every ill that has befallen America in the last several years. Much to my amazement DB doesn't take the opportunity to rake the current administration over the coals for an hour (and honestly, at this point it's pretty much shooting fish in a barrel isn't it?)

Then what does Kenn do? Toward the end of the interview he says the level of social discourse and education in this country has fallen due to who? Bush. That's right, Bush has singlehandedly made America dumber and lowered the social discourse, using his mass mind control and wizardry powers I suppose.

David called him on it, and I applaud that. But seriously . . . what kind of warped clown can't keep his story straight for a mere hour? Is one hour really too long for these nutballs to hold consistent views?

There were other contradictions as well . . . he's an archivist, but he gets most of his information through phone conversations?

Jeez.

Where do you find these people?

 

[cottonzway]

You know I was going to make a thread about the episode but you beat me too it. I guess I still will still make that thread because my points are different, but I have to question Mr. Thomas on a few points as well. I'm not going to call him a "clown" or anything like that though.

 

[ondafritz]

I actually had a hard time following Thomas. It seems that every time he was getting ready to make a point on something then the subject would change or this thought stream would veer off into another dimension (no fault to Gene and David though). Not like Sims but still hard to follow.

I may go back and listen to his earlier interview for a reference point.

 

[David Biedny]

This was definitely not my favorite show. I thought Kenn was a little weak this time out, he's been a good guest in the past, but this time... meh.

Moseley is fun, but a bit off his rocker. I'm glad that he & Gene have history, but the interview was a bit rambling. I like the Korff stories, though.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This was definitely not my favorite show. I thought Kenn was a little weak this time out, he's been a good guest in the past, but this time... meh.

Moseley is fun, but a bit off his rocker. I'm glad that he & Gene have history, but the interview was a bit rambling. I like the Korff stories, though.

I agree with you about Kenn, but not about Jim. He's just just a bit off his rocker, but way off his rocker

Too bad he doesn't remember that encounter with Vallee all those years ago.

But Greenfield and I remember -- remember :

 

[cottonzway]

I was going to open the other thread because I though this one might be found “offending” with the title and all, but the hosts didn’t find a problem with it so I’ll put it here.

I thought the interview with Mr. Thomas was OK. I agree with him in regards to the Pentagon strike and a few of his other points. I did have a problem with a few things he said. One of them really in particular that was already addressed.

One of those things in regards to the 9/11 topic was his attitude towards controlled demolitions in NYC. Now I don’t feel that this IS the most important point in showing that we have been grossly mislead about the events of 9/11. I don’t even feel that WTC 7 is the “key” either as I feel the most critical information contains to the war game exercises going on that day that have NO DEBATE to them (NORARD, FEMA, NORTHCOM, NRO, ect.), but it’s important none the less. If Mr. Thomas doesn’t feel there is legit information to these points he should visit this site(www.ae911truth.org) and look at their information. I think that this is a credible source because these are professionals in the various field that would lead to a better understanding to finding out what the hell happened. Also he mentioned about the head of the Pakistani ISI had ties to the hijackers, but failed to go further to say that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was in the US on 9/11/01 meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham.

Now my “beef” though is the “troofers” comment that he made more then once. I would expect such a hack term if I was listening to right gatekeepers like Bill O’Reilly/ Rush Limbaugh, or left gatekeepers like Noam Chomsky/Amy Goodman. Sorry, buddy, you have some far out ideas and to use that kind of term yourself. It’s ignorant and insulting to me, personally, who spends time speaking out for the people of my country who don’t speak up or are afraid to do so. I am a proud member of Philadelphia for 9/11 Truth. Why this man would use that term and carry his ideas in beyond me. It’s like he wants to be “hip” taking this on with “conspiracy” but uses the same derogatory terms that those who work to suppress debate on the topic. I found it insulting and quite a careless comment.

 

[David Biedny]

I'm going to bite my tongue and do my best to keep my political comments off of here.... but to equate Chomsky, one of the most intelligent men who has ever walked on the face of this earth, an important thinker and someone who understands language better than most of his peers (see his theory of generative grammar and his book "Syntactic Structures"), with morons and inbreds such as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, is just beyond the pale. Chomsky has proven himself time and again in the realms of hard science, and for my money, his thoughts and writings on the political structure of all of this planet are as close to actual truth as anyone is EVER going to get. He's a personal hero of mine (a fact that he would likely disapprove of, as he's very much against cult of personality), and is going to be widely quoted hundreds of years from now, unlike these other subhumans.

 

[cottonzway]

David,

Chomsky came out and said, and I quote ""What does it matter even if it was true, it wouldn't be significant." Answering a question in regards to government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

I am not saying he is not a smart and brillant man, but do you find that comment acceptable? That is what I called him a "Left Gatekeeper" in regards to the 9/11 topic.

 

[ondafritz]

David,

Chomsky came out and said, and I quote ""What does it matter even if it was true, it wouldn't be significant." Answering a question in regards to government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

I am not saying he is not a smart and brillant man, but do you find that comment acceptable? That is what I called him a "Left Gatekeeper" in regards to the 9/11 topic.

Hi cottonzway,

Could you please provide the context in which he made that statement?

Thank you!
Fritz

 

[cottonzway]

 

[cottonzway]

Let me correct myself in saying "quote" as this is the exact quote. I tried to go off memory and didn't have all of it.

"Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't mean anything of significance."

 

[cottonzway]

Thank you, Gene for embedding the link.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thank you, Gene for embedding the link.

Just go back using the mode to edit your post (just Cancel when you check it), and see the simple things I did to embed the link, OK?

 

[ondafritz]

Thank you cottonzway. I appreciate the link. I watched it. And I believe he brings up some good points.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As to the comment itself, it comes at the end of a long, somewhat rambling statement about the unlikelihood of a real 9/11 conspiracy. I suspect it was part of an offhand dismissal, with nothing more meant by it. But those who believe in that conspiracy would be quick to seize upon it as something significant. It's even possible he misspoke, as people do, but that's something that you wouldn't know unless you actually asked him or examined his other statements in more detail, I suppose.

However, it does seem out of context from the rest of what he was saying.

 

[cottonzway]

Thank you cottonzway. I appreciate the link. I watched it. And I believe he brings up some good points.

I do think he brings up and has brough up a lot of good points. My concern is his attitude towards the biggest event in the history of our country. I don't want anyone to think I put his name up with those others to compair his intelligence with those others. I am simply talking about "Gate Keeping" on the 9/11 topic on both sides. Clearly he is a smart man and knowing that one would think he would have a better answer then "who cares, it won't matter" to government involvement in those events.

Also, I don't wany anyone to be fooled by my sig thinking I am some hard-core right-winger. If someone like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich had a snowball chance in hell of "winning" I would support them. All I want is serious change and not another socialist on either side.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thank you cottonzway. I appreciate the link. I watched it. And I believe he brings up some good points.

I do think he brings up and has brough up a lot of good points. My concern is his attitude towards the biggest event in the history of our country. I don't want anyone to think I put his name up with those others to compair his intelligence with those others. I am simply talking about "Gate Keeping" on the 9/11 topic on both sides. Clearly he is a smart man and knowing that one would think he would have a better answer then "who cares, it won't matter" to government involvement in those events.

Also, I don't wany anyone to be fooled by my sig thinking I am some hard-core right-winger. If someone like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich had a snowball chance in hell of "winning" I would support them. All I want is serious change and not another socialist on either side.

Let me just state my viewpoint, such as it is, for the record: I believe there are terrorists, who were no doubt responsible for 9/11 and other horrible acts.

On the other hand, we also have a government that's quick to pounce upon such events and use them to their advantage, in part to take away our freedoms. That doesn't so much have to involve a conspiracy as require a government that, unfortunately, reacts to things in a way we may not like.

It's also true that government is bad at preparing for things, and sometimes even worse at handling tragedies after they occur, witness Hurricane Katrina.

It's easy to say that we should throw the bums out, but I also worry about the bums we get that will replace them, and I'm not sanguine on that prospect right now.

 

[David Biedny]

Cottonzway,

For my money, the "biggest event in the history of our country" is probably our use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When it comes right down to it, this action will likely go down in history as the beginning of the end of the American empire. I realize that anyone can debate this point, and I'm certainly willing to concede that 9.11 was the most important political event in my lifetime (so far), but the fact remains that the U.S. has been the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, and against civilians, to boot. We make big noises about WMD, but to date, the US is the only country that's ever put them to use, a rather dark mark on our history, especially after all of the horror of WWII and the otherwise noble things the U.S. did in Europe to stop the Nazi agenda. 70,000 people died from the direct blast in Hiroshima, slightly less in Nagasaki, many more died the the weeks that followed. That's an order of magnitude greater than the direct deaths of 9.11. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of 9.11 - someone I personally knew, Daniel Lewin, was the very first person to die that day, so I have some very strong feelings about the events of 9.11, as well as how history will regard the events of that day, and the truth of what actually went down. In the end, I suspect that the American psyche would implode if the actual truth of that day is ever revealed.

 

[cottonzway]

Thank you cottonzway. I appreciate the link. I watched it. And I believe he brings up some good points.

I do think he brings up and has brough up a lot of good points. My concern is his attitude towards the biggest event in the history of our country. I don't want anyone to think I put his name up with those others to compair his intelligence with those others. I am simply talking about "Gate Keeping" on the 9/11 topic on both sides. Clearly he is a smart man and knowing that one would think he would have a better answer then "who cares, it won't matter" to government involvement in those events.

Also, I don't wany anyone to be fooled by my sig thinking I am some hard-core right-winger. If someone like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich had a snowball chance in hell of "winning" I would support them. All I want is serious change and not another socialist on either side.

Let me just state my viewpoint, such as it is, for the record: I believe there are terrorists, who were no doubt responsible for 9/11 and other horrible acts.

On the other hand, we also have a government that's quick to pounce upon such events and use them to their advantage, in part to take away our freedoms. That doesn't so much have to involve a conspiracy as require a government that, unfortunately, reacts to things in a way we may not like.

It's also true that government is bad at preparing for things, and sometimes even worse at handling tragedies after they occur, witness Hurricane Katrina.

It's easy to say that we should throw the bums out, but I also worry about the bums we get that will replace them, and I'm not sanguine on that prospect right now.

I do agree with you Gene about terrorists. Let me be clear about something as well. I do feel that there were Muslim Extremists involved in the 9/11 attacks. I would say to be exact, Sunni-Wahabbists who are the most likely to do such things due to their radical ideas and connects to those of power in the middle-east.

I do not support what I would call “fringe” 9/11 theories. About as “far out” I get would be into the buildings in NYC and that is not only because of real, legit professionals who question what happened and more importantly the points made by those in the building who say things that have way more questions then answers.

Where we disagree is on the ability for these “terrorists” to allow a total failure of government and to schedule several war game exercises that made these attacks possible. There is/was a breach by people who committed treason to our country, based on that, in my view. The war games along with the national disgrace known as the 9/11 Commission Report are what lead me to openly question that someone(s) inside of our government committed high treason and war crimes on their on people. I do not know fully who that is because I don’t find it possible for ME to know that. There is more then enough info, based on real info, to conclude we have been lied to. Have you had a chance to read the 9/11 Commission Report, Gene? I would encourage you to if you have not because that panel shows themselves as pathetic liars covering up the crimes of someone for whatever reason they have.

 

[David Biedny]

There is/was a breach by people who committed treason to our country, based on that, in my view. The war games along with the national disgrace known as the 9/11 Commission Report are what lead me to openly question that someone(s) inside of our government committed high treason and war crimes on their on people.

On this point I'm in total agreement. The Bush junta has been involved in crimes that make Nixon look like a fucking saint. These criminals are breaking laws every day, and they're not done yet. I fear that the worst is yet to come from these scumbags, they know no bounds and their depravity is simply stunning.