Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
yes (2.50 / 2)
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!

That was weak sauce from Cenk, sorry, love ya' but its true.

I loved that Ventura gave Cenk a hard time (not too many guests are good enough to lay the smack down on Cenk). The best part was when Cenk was saying how improbable it would be for a bunch of people higher up to create 911 and Ventura said something like "you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!" When you think about it like that then yeah, I guess anything is possible.

I think a lot of people are just turned off by the "conspiracy" crap and blow it off as crazy stuff, all I'm saying is give it a chance.

Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 01:44:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Simplicity (3.40 / 3)
Occam's Razor demands simplicity.

"...you find it easy to believe a handfull of people with box cutters can fly a bunch of planes into some buildings!"

Yes.

The plan was elegant and simple.  It did require preparation, including gathering identifications and passports, and learning the basics of flying a large aircraft (but not how to take off or land).  They needed enough money for flight school, travel, and living expenses.  And box cutters.

It was simple, do-able, and they did it.

All I'm asking for is some credible evidence for a broader conspiracy reaching into the White House or (name your agency here).

With all of the backstabbing going on by members of the previous administration and the Republican Party in general, if there was any such evidence, I think it would have come out by now even if it didn't during the 9/11 Commission's investigation.  But the only people who are talking are people whose sole occupation is selling their hollow books (see Alan Miller's comment below), and no one is vouching for them.

Besides, why hasn't Richard Clarke talked about any of this?  If there was anyone credible who could have direct knowledge of such a conspiracy as well as a motive for exposing it, wouldn't it be him?  Or is he "in" on the conspiracy?

And yes, before you hang me for it, I admit that is another "lack of evidence" argument just like so many of the conspiracy theories.  But the positivists always bear the burden of proof, and lack of evidence is sufficient grounds for dismissal, not acceptance.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:38:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
lack of evidence? (1.00 / 4)
are you serious?  The whole reason there are still 9/11 conspiracy theorists is because the physical evidence at the scene points contrary to what the story says.  Obviously you are a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.  Loose change was not done by a nutjob...who says it wasn't done by someone in the government.  If someone came out within the government with "evidence" that 9/11 was a conspiracy set up by the government, you don't think that person would be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life?  I mean, shit, if the conspiracy is true, and the goverment killed 3,000 Americans, you think one more would be a hard decision?  I just think it's odd that people who are discrediting the conspiracy theory based on a "lack of evidence" must ignore some things that are scientifically proveable, such as the metling point of steel vs. the peak burning temperatures of the reported fuels on site.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 12:04:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obviously (2.60 / 1)
I am a person who dismisses theories without actually listening to the evidence behind them.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 04:33:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
there's a Turkish saying (1.00 / 3)
Yarasi olan gocunur

"he who bears the wound takes offense.

Nice rating our comment AnEngineer, it says a lot;)

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chris (none / 0)
this is what I was talking about earlier, some people also don't really know what is scientific fact and evidence vs speculation (which is sad). Like the boiling point of water at sea level or the melting point of steel. These are undisputable facts. Whereas things such as "I survived a car crash and that must be a miracle from God" are not fact and cannot be proven.

Common sense, isn't actually all that common.

This dude is my fav pseudo-scientist who thinks he understands facts and science:

wadda genius. I'll bet he can explain 911 and dispute Loose Change point by point with his flawless logic.

y

by chrisandyasemin on 06/09/2009 05:33:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A rose is not always a rose. (none / 1)
"Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up. Sorry, I'm going tough on Cenk now, but seriously, he was like allergic to Ventura's 911 ideas to the point that it was awkward. And yet Cenk always says when he is trying to make sense out of crazy Republican theories or talking points that "I'm trying here to make sense of this or find some logic in it but I just can't!" and yet, I feel like he doesn't give that same "chance" to the 911 inconsistencies people bring up."

I agree completely.

Listening to that exchange bought to mind watching Charlie Rose who, when he interviewed Naomi Klien on her book 'The Shock Doctrine',  got really defensive and kept interupting her, I mean A LOT, like I've never seen him do before, and trying to shoot down what she was saying. Very revealing of where Rose's head is really at. Worth watching if you can dig it up.

by spigzone on 06/09/2009 02:12:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
'mainstream' (none / 0)
I've seen the interview, Charlie wouldn't even use the word torture he kept refering to it as 'enhanced interrogation'. Cenk, you have an internet show you don't have to play the mainstream game. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a taboo subject in the mainstream media and you're playing thier game by favouring the official story without taking the time to see the arguements presented in 'fringe, conspiracy nutjob movies'.

And you can't find this conspirarcy too unthinkable because of the humanity of the people at the top. That thay couldn't kill that many of their citizens. Do they care about the 4000 Americans that died in Iraq? That's about the same number that died in 9/11. If they don't care enough to send them to die in a for-profit war, then is it really that improbable that they staged the event killing about the same number of citezens that would necissitate public support for the war?

by Tansul on 06/09/2009 06:08:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
weak sauce (none / 0)
I too was disappointed with Cenk's lame "yeah but I read things about it" in regards to Loose Change... He watches so many lame movies each week which become conversation topics in the 3rd hour, the least he can do is watch this one, and hey, its free (and relevant)!
That was weak sauce from Cenk.

EXACTLY




by fgoyeau on 06/09/2009 08:50:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)