The Conspiracy About Conspiracy

Warning to the nuance-challenged: Satire Ahead.

For the rest of you, enjoy this Signs Of The Times feature and take it as food for thought.

Blue Ibis

***************************************************************

World Trade Center Collapse: Spoofing the DailyKos

by Codependent Thinker, DailyDros
(Inspired by the DailyKos and the bastion of truthiness, BBC)
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:04 EDT

Readers of DailyDros have seen more than one outrageous 9/11 conspiracy theory surface on these pages. And there have been a few diaries questioning why conspiracy theory diaries are not allowed. Would it have to do with something about lack of evidence? As we've been told by our fearless leaders repeatedly, there is a TON of evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. Sure, they haven't shown it to us, but they said they've got it. That's good enough for us here at DailyDros!

What do the Conspiracy Theorists have, anyway? Physical anomalies, inconsistent eyewitness testimony, physical traces of thermate at the WTC, WTC7. In other words, not much! They call this evidence?! On the other hand, we've got scores of scientists willing to support the idea that because the towers were not demolished, that they could not have been demolished. That's logic. Because the towers were not demolished, that means that there must be a plausible explanation for every aspect of the towers' destruction that SEEMED to be analogous to controlled demolition.

I mean, we have Bin Laden ON TAPE, admitting that he was responsible. In fact, whenever there is a terrorist attack, we have numerous different groups claiming responsibility. Luckily for our safety, this absolutely proves that all the groups claiming responsibility were in fact responsible. That's the way it works, folks. Plain and simple. If you admit it, you did it. To think otherwise would be to believe in Conspiracy Theories, and you'll find none of those here! In the REAL world, criminals don't conspire! And when they do, they get caught. It's that simple! (I mean, why would a good American fake a Bin Laden tape? What is this, a Robert Ludlum novel??)

And to all those people who blame the Reichstag on the Germans, who think the Nazis framed the Polish to justify an invasion, who think the Japanese staged the incident at Mukden, get real! There is simply NO evidence for any of these. In fact, it was a communist who was caught at the Reichstag. The Nazis merely retaliated. What are you people, "conspiracy theorists"? I mean, pshaw!

Evidence is the bane of kooky conspiracy theorists (from now on known as CT'ers). Those pesky Facts keep getting in the way of ever crazier ideas. Questions about why no wreckage found outside of the Pentagon of the plane that hit it are just one example. However easily refuted by Physics and Engineering (the two eternally objective sciences in which bias, corruption, and being wrong are never to be found) it is still not enough. Take our word for it.

I mean, what about the FACT that Mohammed Atta's luggage contained his will, a flight manual, and a Koran?? This absolutely proves he was a fanatical Muslim terrorist plotting to fly a jetliner into a building for Allah! What other logical explanation is there? Are you going to tell us here at the DailyDros that this evidence (FACTS!!!) was planted?! Get real. No American would possibly do such a thing. I mean, only CRIMINALS would plant evidence to frame someone else, and that's conspiracy thinking.

The BBC has a story today about an engineer from Cambridge who mathematically tested the collapse of the twin towers. That's right. Mathematically. That means he can't be wrong. Take our word for it.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

Sure, I know what you CT'ers are thinking. "Wasn't the pancake theory already discredited by official sources? How was there enough energy to both pulverize the concrete and destroy all the central steel columns in a total collapse? Wasn't a large portion (if not all) of the potential cumulative energy released by ejecting the pulverized concrete and steel tens of meters outward, in the initial second of "collapse"? There's not even any evidence that the fires reached temperatures hot enough to heat the steel to the point of failure. In other words, there's no good explanation for how all the perimeter and central support columns failed at exactly the same time, from minimal fire damage."

Two words: horse hockey. This guy's got math. Residual capacity.

I can hear the CT'ers wailing that this guy was paid by the Bush administration to provide bogus evidence. Pretty hard to refute that claim, which is typical of CT'ers tactics. After all, it IS a CONSPIRACY theory.

What are they going to say next? That people actually blackmail scientists? That some scientists have the moral integrity of a jellyfish? That scientists are wrong? Get real. They wouldn't be called scientists if they were wrong. In case you forgot, science tells us what is true, and those scientists who say our commonly accepted theories about reality are wrong are just that -- wrong! Science didn't get where it is today by accepting the kooky theories of maverick thinkers, after all... We're right and we know it. What's not to get?

"But the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions", CT'ers cry.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Not so, asserts the good Doctor Steffen. I believe him. Why don't you? I mean he's a SCIENTIST, gosh darnit! Why WOULDN'T I believe him? I don't even need to read his paper, (which, by they way, has yet to be published) because it's obviously correct.

The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

You see, he says it was "very ordinary." That's evidence. Even though the only progressive collapses in the historical record are the WTC buildings, he says they were ordinary. Must be so, then. He's a scientist.

I realize that there will never be enough "proof" to convince CT'ers, but on the eve of the anniversary of this heinous attack on innocent citizens of the world, I can only say that I am glad Dros bans conspiracy theories.

Controversial 9/11 Diaries

DailyDros accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
2. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse.

Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Dros

There are enough nut cases around without having to put up with them.

Once again, the Editors of the Signs of the Times bring you the best of web commentary. Today's offering is written by the ever insightful Kurt Nimmo. His website Another Day in the Empire, is highly recommended reading for anyone wanting to get an objective grip on the world.

Blue Ibis

*************************************************************
Pat Tillman and the "Elaborate Lies" of Psychopathic Rulers

Kurt Nimmo
Another Day in the Empire
Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:05 EDT

The fact our rulers would lie and lie mightily should not come as a surprise, as they are mostly psychopaths, and psychopathy is defined as a condition characterized by lack of conscience and manipulative behavior. "The psychopaths, those human-looking predators without conscience, have no love for the rest of humanity," notes Henry See, citing the work of Andrew Lobaczewski. "It is a life and death struggle between them and us because they know that if the true nature of their existence as humanity's natural predator ever come to light, they would lose everything."

Lies. For the Bush neocons, they are second nature, as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Bush and crew lied about the events of September 11, 2001, about "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan, about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

Pat Tillman, the football star who walked away from an NFL career to fight a manufactured enemy in Afghanistan, where he was shot dead by his own troops, was shamelessly exploited by the Pentagon, and became part of yet another lie.

"His family was initially misled by the Pentagon and did not learn the truth for more than a month. Tillman was awarded a Silver Star based on fabricated accounts - who fabricated them still isn't clear after several investigations," reports the Ledger Independent. "We don't know what the secretary of defense knew, we don't know what the White House knew," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "What we do know is these were not a series of accidents, these stories. They were calculatedly put out for a public relations purpose.... Even now there seems to be a cover-up."

Of course there was a cover-up - that's what government officials do. Pathological lies come easy and right as rain for the likes of the pathocrats who lord over us.

"I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary," former Pvt. Jessica Lynch told the committee. "The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals for heroes, and they don't need to be told elaborate tales."

However, with all due respect to Ms. Lynch, the American people do need to be told "elaborate tales," in fact elaborate and engineered lies designed to hornswoggle the commoners, who in the past were motivated to tar and feather government officials for lesser crimes, for instance levying excise taxes.

Now?

We are more outraged over celebrity actors with anger management problems yelling at their daughters. We can't be bothered with illegal wars predicated on malfeasance and mendacity - not when Shyamalia the Hooters girl is showing cleavage one channel over. If indeed we are the least bit interested in politics, we can tune in to Sheryl Crow and producer Laurie David confronting Karl Rove over the issue of global warming, never mind there "is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change," as climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, would have it.

The fact our rulers would lie and lie mightily should not come as a surprise, as they are mostly psychopaths, and psychopathy is defined as a condition characterized by lack of conscience and manipulative behavior. "The psychopaths, those human-looking predators without conscience, have no love for the rest of humanity," notes Henry See, citing the work of Andrew Lobaczewski. "It is a life and death struggle between them and us because they know that if the true nature of their existence as humanity's natural predator ever come to light, they would lose everything."

Indeed, they would lose everything, but as it now stands humanity, at least the slice here in America, can't be bothered with these "intraspecies predators," not when rumors regnant offer details on Paris Hilton's promenade with Kevin Federline in Las Vegas.

Pity the masses for their inability or unwillingness to call out the predators, for their ignorance carries an ultimately burdensome, if not fatal, result.

"President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice," writes Eric Alterman, with obvious frustration. "In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented 'embroidering key assertions' and were clearly 'dubious, if not wrong.' The President's 'rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy,' he has 'taken some liberties,' 'omitted qualifiers' and 'simply outpace[d] the facts.' But 'Bush lied'? Never."

But of course, Eric, and for obvious reason - the corporate media is owned and operated by the same psychopaths, the Washington Post and the New York Times constitute their purview.

As Lobaczewski writes, "all ponerogenic associations have in common ... their statistically high concentration of individuals with various psychological anomalies," malformations shared by "gangs, criminal mobs, mafias, cliques, and coteries."

Naturally, media owned by a psychopathic death merchant outfit such as General Electric, a megacorporation with a $43 billion media empire, will naturally engage "various psychological anomalies" in order to stay atop the dung heap - or, more accurately, a massive and stinking mountain of dead bodies, numbering in the millions - and it is quite naive, if not downright half-witted, for Mr. Alterman to think otherwise.

Dana Milbank, regardless of what Eric Alterman writes, is a Yalie, a member of Skull and Bones, and works for the CIA's favorite newspaper. No doubt he is quite enthusiastic about his job as a corporate scrivener and doubtless as well he is well-compensated for the effort. But then the Nation magazine, where Mr. Alterman writes, is owned by Katrina vanden Heuvel, daughter of William J. vanden Heuvel, the onetime executive assistant to the founder of the CIA, William Joseph Donovan. Vanden Heuvel later became a board member of the Farfield Foundation, billed as a "philanthropic foundation," in fact a CIA front organization.

If you can say anything about the media psychopaths and their pathocratic buddies in government, it is they are accomplished at manipulation, a hallmark of psychopathy. Frank "Wisner's gang of weirdos," as the closet queen J. Edgar Hoover described the CIA, was and is certainly accomplished at manipulation, as Operation Mockingbird, that is to say the wholesale compromise of corporate media, is a well-oiled machine going on some sixty odd years now. Thus it should come as no surprise criminal - indeed, genocidal - lies keep a tight ship.

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, may call for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to haul former Secretary of Forever War, Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. John Abizaid, then-chief of the U.S. Central Command, before his committee to explain the lies surrounding the death of former NFL star and Army Ranger Pat Tillman, but this is an exercise in futility, at best a roadside spectacle, soon obviated by larger, more portentous news stories, for instance Courtney Love's decision to keep her "butt in shape" through diet and exercise.

"How high up did it go?" Henry Waxman demands to know.

Well, Hank, if the truth be told - and even if it is, no doubt it will be preempted by the Sports Babes' draft analysis - we can bet our bottom dollar it runs all the way to the top.

Finally, and sadly, considering the fact Mr. Waxman needs to ask is indication enough he will never get there

DU Military Coverup and a Democratic Backpeddle

Below, find two Iraq Stories. One about those sent to the front lines and bear the brunt of greedy psychopathic arms manufacturers. The other is about the too-little-too-late repentence of the the Dems.

Blue Ibis

*********************************************************************

Army made video warning about dangers of depleted uranium but never showed it to troops



David Edwards
RawStory
Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:26 EST

A special investigation on the effects of depleted uranium reveals the Army made a tape warning of the effects of depleted uranium which was never shown to troops despite the fact the Pentagon knew the agent to be potentially deadly, CNN reports Tuesday.

Depleted uranium -- or DU -- was used in the Gulf War as a projectile that could penetrate tank armor. A group of soldiers are suing the US government because they are sick from exposure; despite the unshown video, the Army denies that depleted uranium represents a serious health risk.

CNN reporter Greg Hunter explains. The soldiers "report similar ailments. Painful urination, headaches and joint pain. They say Army doctors blame their symptoms on post traumatic stress. We showed them a tape the Army made in 1995, a tape the Army never distributed. It warned of potential D.U. hazards. The army's expert on D.U. training concedes some information contained on the tape is true. For instance, radioactive particles can be harmful."

A doctor who once investigated DU for the Army now believes that the health risks are serious.

"In the 1990s this doctor studied D.U. health effects for the U.S. military," Hunter says. "Now a private researcher, he says his own test of these veterans showed abnormally high levels of D.U. this their urine and that those levels pose a serious health threat."

"One doctor... calls it, quote, 'a radiological sewer,'" Hunter adds. "The Army adamantly denies that."

Go to RawStory for Video

Take the time to watch a psychopathic system in action. Not only are these five men dying from DU exposure, but thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. Thousands more Lebanese men, women and children will die from the DU weaponry, thoughtfully provided by the U.S. to Isreal. Remember, radiation contamination is for hundreds to thousands of years:

"One doctor... calls it, quote, 'a radiological sewer,'"

Where are the residents of these places to go, now that the U.S. and its allies have destroyed their land

After this I find the Dems mea culpa a little lame . . . . . .

Half of Democratic Senators Regret Iraq Vote

By: Christian Lowe and Daniel W. Reilly and Carrie Budoff
Politico.com
Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:55 EST

Half of the current Democratic senators who backed President Bush's call to war in 2002 say they now regret authorizing the invasion of Iraq, according to a Politico survey.

But while nine of 18 Democrats who backed Bush now wish they had not, Republicans had fewer misgivings -- only three voiced regret. The lack of a similar GOP groundswell highlights the dilemma that some senators from the president's party face as they seek re-election amid sagging voter support for the war -- and, specifically, the president's plan to send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq.

From Maine to New Hampshire to Minnesota, potential Democratic challengers in the 2008 elections are already gearing up campaigns that will try to capitalize on the past and present congressional debates on Iraq.

"It is hard to see how Iraq does not remain a central issue," said Steve Marchand, the Democratic mayor of Portsmouth, N.H., and a potential challenger to Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., next year.

As senators began a historic debate Monday on Bush's troop surge, a majority said they were wary of its success, with 58 telling The Politico that they opposed the plan. Yet, a core group of Republicans remained undecided on whether to express that discontent with a "yes" vote on a resolution critical of the president's plan.

The survey findings underscore the volatility of the debate at the outset of the 2008 Senate campaigns. The vote on a resolution opposing a troop boost will likely emerge as a defining moment, second only to the 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq invasion that for some senators has become the most painful episode of their public careers.

While the prospect of an up-or-down vote has left senators from across the country weighing public opinion against party loyalty and political prospects against national security policy, for more than 50 senators who held office in 2002, the Iraq war vote remains a matter of conviction.

"When I made up my mind to vote no, I went home and slept like a log," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

For others, the resolution is the chance to start righting a wrong. A dozen of the 100 senators surveyed by The Politico over the last week, including nine of the 18 Democrats who backed the war in 2002, said they regret their choice.

"I have apologized to my constituents and it will be something I will regret for as long as I live," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who faces re-election next year and is supporting a non-binding, resolution crafted by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that opposes Bush's troop boost.

Critics of a congressional rebuke of Bush say it is wrong-headed, the latest misstep in a four-year odyssey through the shifting sands of the Middle East with no simple resolution. At least 30 senators -- all Republicans, with the exception of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn. -- told The Politico that the Bush plan should be given a chance.

Many of those senators also criticize the Warner-Levin measure as a feel-good resolution that offers little concrete direction about how to steer the nation through the mounting sectarian fighting in Iraq.

"The Democratic Party is making a huge mistake," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., also up for re-election next year. "We all embrace withdrawal at some point. But they will not talk in detail about what would happen in Iraq if we left in six months."

The senators facing the most excruciating decision in the coming days are the 20 Republicans and 12 Democrats -- particularly Sununu, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. -- who are next in line to face voters.

The three Republicans are feeling intense pressure here and in their home states, as opposition researchers catalogue their moves. Democrats in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Maine say the war -- and how their Republican senators have voted on it -- will dominate their campaign strategies.

"It will be one of the litmus test issues for Senator Sununu," said Marchand, the Portsmouth mayor. "In New Hampshire, if you look at last November, it's pretty clear that people of New Hampshire have made a statement with regard to the war in Iraq."

Sununu can't escape the question.

Reporters chase him down in the Capitol hallways, and collar him near the Senate elevators. Antiwar activists cajole him with pickets outside his Portsmouth office and television ads in the state urge him to reject the troop buildup in Iraq.

Sununu's coyness might be expected: He is considered one of the most vulnerable senators.

Five years ago, Sununu was a three-term congressman, elected to the Senate by a slim margin in a state that puts a premium on independence. As divergent as Washington is from the North Country, the wooded territory of New Hampshire that hugs the Canadian border, the political climate was far different then.

Bush, who campaigned for Sununu, enjoyed a 72 percent approval rating in the state, nearly twice what it is now. A month before the election, Sununu, like many of his colleagues, urged the passage of the war resolution, saying Saddam Hussein had shepherded the development of weapons of mass destruction.

"If we wait until Iraq succeeds in achieving these goals, we will have waited too long," Sununu said in 2002, when he voted in the House to support the move to war.

These days, Sununu's position on Iraq is hard to categorize -- and his state's electorate increasingly impatient with the war.

Sununu voices discontent with Bush's policy. "We made significant mistakes after Saddam Hussein's fall in April of 2003," Sununu wrote in a column posted on his Senate Web site last month.

But he has not backed a resolution challenging Bush's policy,and he voted against the most critical one when it came before the Foreign Relations Committee -- although even then Sununu expressed concern about the buildup.

"John Sununu is looking at what happened in New Hampshire: the decapitation of the Republicans," said Ross K. Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor who has written several books on Congress. Voters ousted the state's two congressmen, both Republicans, and turned the statehouse Democratic.

Sununu and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., "both feel the ground is shifting under them," Baker added.

As Sununu surveys his options, at least five of his fellow Republicans have signed on to Warner's compromise resolution. All are among those up for reelection next year. Coleman, who could face a Democratic challenge from liberal radio talk show host Al Franken, has been trying to carve out a middle ground, criticizing Bush in one breath, and raising questions about a quick troop withdrawal in the next.

The first-term senator grew testy with reporters last week, ruffled at the suggestion that politics was steering his decisions.

"This is not about the election, and a lot of us ... find that offensive," Coleman said. "This is about the toughest decision you make in the Senate."
[yeah, right . . . . ]

He can expect the issue to dog him.

Jessica McIntosh, spokeswoman for the Minnesota State Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, said Iraq would "absolutely" be the centerpiece of the party's campaign against Coleman. And like Sununu and Collins, Coleman has been targeted by VoteVets, a political action committee that began a national campaign last week arguing that those who decline to oppose the president's plan "don't support the troops." The group has raised about $500,000, which it has spent in four states and the District of Columbia.

Collins, who voted for the war in 2002, also faces the likelihood of running for re-election against an antiwar candidate in a state that favored Democrats for president and governor during the last two elections. At least three potential challengers have emerged.

Collins, however, has been one of the most vocal critics of Bush's surge plan, resisting softer resolutions crafted by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in favor of those pushed by Warner.

While she says politics has nothing to do with it, others wonder. Next year's election "certainly will be a challenge for her," said Chellie Pingree, the former president of Common Cause who got drubbed by Collins in the 2002 Senate race, and is considering another run. "Now, Collins, like a lot of Republicans, (are) looking for ways to re-craft their stand. That's the politically unpredictable part. That didn't work for everybody in this cycle."

**************************************************
Notice there's ot a word of concern about the constituents these clowns are elected to serve. Just how to manipulate the great uwashed to they can get or keep the perks and privileges that they've become accustomed to.

Pathetic