Monday, June 26, 2006

[political-research] Digest Number 1274

Messages In This Digest (6 Messages)



Re: On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult

Posted by: "Sean McBride"   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:59 pm (PST)


I have a fairly fast brain. I read quickly, absorb quickly, make many connections among disparate sources quickly, and tend to remember most of what I read at a detailed level, often to the page number. I know the no-planer arguments inside and out and don't require a refresher course.

What makes the no-planers quite cultlike is their inability to tolerate disagreement and dissent, and the ferocity and viciousness with which they attack better minds than themselves like David Ray Griffin, Ray McGovern and Steven Jones and impugn the worst motives to them. Gerard Holmgren especially has rubbed me the wrong way in this respect, and it was his latest attack on Griffin which set me off.

Reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the visual evidence concerning the events of 9/11. I personally give digital video evidence on anything little or no credence at all, and I don't regard the methods used to accomplish 9/11 to be anywhere near as important as the actors and motives. Whether planes were used or not to bring down the towers matters not a whit to me.

For Gerard Holmgren to attack one of the most effective voices in the 9/11 truth movement in the way he did, from a position which most Americans would regard as a crackpot conspiracy theory, smacks to me of COINTELPRO or ignorant fanaticism -- one or the other.

To move the 9/11 truth movement forward, and to ratchet up the political pressure for a real investigation, will require reaching as many mainstream American minds as possible. Attacking the most effective voices for achieving this end is suspicious, to say the least.

Bill Giltner <> wrote:

As I've said before, (and I know it makes me sound like a suck-up),
I appreciate your contributions as the owner and major contributer
to this list.

However, I want to respond taking issue with your words here.

1) The word cult seems to be way over the top. There are people of
all sorts and opinions about what the facts of 9/11 are. I think
you are reacting to Webfairy and Holmgren, and possibly Nico.
Perhaps you've found my contributions disgusting and poorly
educated. I admit I don't always understand the battles and
approaches that the above mentioned persons follow, but if there is
indeed cult-like activity going on, I think it's more likely
organized dis-info rather than religious-like devotion to a leader
or cause.

2) I think that the evidence that supports the "no-plane" or "no
jetliner" argument about 9/11 is very strong. Of course, it creates
a huge question mark about what happened to the planes and people
alleged to be on those planes. There are other implications, of
course, as well.

This political-research list may not be the place to explore
a "unified theory" that can explain the evidence and lead us all
further down the path to solve this crime. And I understand that
the attitudes taken against D. R. Griffin appear unseemly. However,
for myself I've found the postings here that concern 9/11 research
here are a very much needed contribution to what would otherwise be
a discussion without enough direct ties to the facts and inferences
from events of 9/11.


Re: On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

Posted by: "Bill Giltner"   bgiltner

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:22 pm (PST)

--- In, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
> On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

No Grad Degree, 2nd Tier Undergrad: B.S. Econ, Vanderbilt, 1980


Re: On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

Posted by: "Sean McBride"   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:35 pm (PST)

Perhaps this accounts for the fact that generally you are able to present your ideas more reasonably and effectively than Gerard Holmgren and Webfairy.

If you want a good example of how disciplined minds can conduct themselves on the hottest of topics, check out John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's measured replies to their critics and attackers.

If I were you, I would put a very great distance between yourself and Gerard Holmgren. His posts are the kiss of death. Many people are going to have an allergic reaction to him personally, and transfer their hostility to anything with which he is associated.

Bill Giltner <> wrote:
--- In, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
> On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

No Grad Degree, 2nd Tier Undergrad: B.S. Econ, Vanderbilt, 1980


How America is rapidly becoming a police state

Posted by: "Sean McBride"   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:38 pm (PST)



For years I've been warning my readers about the coming police state and the abusive use of power by the Bush administration. This year, we have learned that President Bush -- or should I say King George Bush -- personally authorized domestic spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). In articles that have appeared in the New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and other national news papers, George Bush admitted that he personally signed off on 30 illegal surveillance wiretaps, and furthermore, he defended the practice, explaining that wiretapping American citizens was saving American lives because of the war on terror. Furthermore, he explained he was doing everything in his power under the laws of the Constitution to protect U.S. citizens and their civil liberties.

The degree of doublespeak being used by George Bush in that statement is extraordinary. His lack of historical context is utterly jaw-dropping. The man is becoming the Stalin of the United States. He is destroying our civil liberties and the Constitution, while simultaneously claiming that he is protecting the Constitution and the civil liberties of the American people. What could be more sinister than using our own intelligence services to spy on the American people? This is more than a little reminiscent of the secret police of Nazi Germany.

Save and share anything you find online - Furl @


On Building an Effective 9/11 Truth Movement

Posted by: "Sean McBride"   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:45 pm (PST)

On Building an Effective 9/11 Truth Movement

Building an effective 9/11 truth movement, one which may be able to acquire enough steam to inspire the American people to demand answers for the hundreds of outstanding questions about 9/11, will require enlisting as many sincere and bright minds as possible. Accomplishing this will require tolerating a wide range of diverse opinions and theories about what really happened on 9/11. The only price of admission should be the willingness to challenge the official story, using facts and reason.

Any parties in the movement that are engaging in COINTELPRO-style attacks on the most effective voices for opening up a real official investigation into 9/11 should be thoroughly ostracized and ignored, in my opinion -- not given the time of day. They are working to destroy effective coalition-building of the kind that is necessary to push 9/11 to the front and center of the American political agenda.

If no-planers want to be taken seriously, they will have to treat other 9/11 skeptics, all across the spectrum, with civility and respect. Otherwise, they will understandably become the targets of the very same abuse they are dishing out.


9/11 conspiracy theorists gather at LA conference

Posted by: "Sean McBride"   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:37 pm (PST)


Save and share anything you find online - Furl @

We Made Changes

Your Yahoo! Groups email is all new.

Learn More

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at

No comments: