Saturday, March 15, 2008

nail down specific facts


Events with regard to Fallon's resignation have preoccupied my time. Fallon's resignation is frightening. President Bush and his administration are totally out of control and it is a bad sign for Fallon to resign given the context.

I do want to respond to your points but first I want to point out that I provided two links with regard to Mike Ruppert’s: Crossing the Rubicon because realitydesign said it "is the backbone of non demolition 911 research" and "the hardcore research set." You wrote that I "called our attention to an attempted debunking of Michael C. Ruppert’s timeline by someone with the moniker “COINTELPRO Tool,” BUT what I did was provide two links to debunk two specific claims which Ruppert makes. The first link you ignored. It showed that Ruppert doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to Cheney supposedly being in charge of NORAD. The first link shows there's "minimal or no supporting evidence" for Ruppert’s claim. That was what I was calling your attention to with that link but you ignored that point. The second link went directly to a section which debunked Ruppert’s claim about Osama bin Laden meeting a top CIA official at the American hospital in Dubai. That point, which the writer addresses "from the top," was what I was calling your attention to with the second link but you didn't address that point but rather went into other things. The writer points out "first of all, Le Figaro never "confirmed" anything with Dubai hospital staff, and Ruppert knows this." What I directly linked to was what I was really trying to point out, I didn't intend on discussing the other points, I have not even read "COINTELPRO Tool” on Afghanistan. I hope the tone of this response doesn't sound too gruff, it is not my intention. I just wanted to nail down specific facts. I think a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff endlessly shifts focus when specific points get debunked. I think that is not a good thing obviously.

I understand you wrote that you'll respond regarding other issues later. I look forward to it. I will post a reply to specific points with regard to 9/11 and the motive. Thank you for taking the time with your "Second reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press”" I will respond in detail to that soon.



Anonymous said...

To Tom:

Regarding your complaint that I ignored two issues you called attention to in this earlier comment of yours:

First, I didn't feel obliged to address every point in your earlier comment, because that comment was a reply to "realitydesign," not to me. As I also said in my initial reply, I have not yet read Ruppert's book, so I'm not in a good position to defend (or critique) Ruppert's work in general.

Furthermore, the two specific claims you're talking about here, namely (1) that Cheney was put in charge of NORAD, and (2) that Osama bin Laden was treated at the American hosital at Dubai, are not claims that I personally have ever made or endorsed. On the other hand, I have previously talked about pre-9/11 U.S. plans to invade Afghanistan, so I did feel obliged to address that issue.

But I did say, in my my initial reply, that "at some point" I would look at those two pages and give you my perspective on the issues raised. So, for what it's worth, here is my tentative current perspective (subject to change in the future as I do more research):

1) As for the claim that Cheney was put in charge of NORAD, I have never looked into that claim at all, so I can't comment at this point. I'll just say I've never seen this particular point as a top priority issue in terms of building a case for U.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11. At some point I should look into it, of course, There are quite a few other issues pertaining to NORAD, the war games, etc. that I should dig deeper into as well.

2) As for the claim that Osama bin Laden was treated at the American hosital in Dubai, I'm aware that it's based on a single unsubstantiated news report. This doesn't necessarily mean that the claim is false. (After all, there are obvious reasons why both the CIA and hospital officials would deny this story even if it were true.) But it does mean that this story can't be considered strong evidence of anything.

However, there are plenty of other reasons to suspect that the relationship between Osama bin Laden and the U.S. State Department may be something other than what the official story claims. See the collection of pages listed under 3. Evidence that Osama Bin Laden never severed ties with the CIA. Documentation of his Involvement in NATO attacks on Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Balkans during the past decade. on the Emperor's Clothes site. I should disclaim, though, that I haven't yet researched that larger issue in as much depth as I would like to either, so I don't necessarily stand by every claim made in that section of the "Emperor's clothes" site. I should dig deeper into the question of the possible relationship between Osama bin Laden and various high U.S. officials.

You wrote: "I hope the tone of this response doesn’t sound too gruff, it is not my intention. I just wanted to nail down specific facts. I think a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff endlessly shifts focus when specific points get debunked. I think that is not a good thing obviously."

Well, there are lots and lots of reasons why various people suspect something fishy about 9/11. So, even if as many as 90% of those reasons turn out to be unfounded, the remaining 10% would still be quite a bit. In the meantime, various people might not be making the best choice in terms of what to emphasize.

Anonymous said...

To Tom: Looking more closely at your earlier comment here, it doesn't actually raise the two specific issues that you later complained that I ignored. Your earlier comment just gave two links in support of a very general, sweeping statement about Ruppert's allegedly lousy research. So, that's even less reason why I should have been expected to address the particular two issues you raised in you subsequent complaint. Based on your earlier comment, I had no way of knowing which specific issues you were most interested in. (The second linked page covered lots of issues.)

Anyhow, I've given a preliminary response on those two issues here. See also my comment here.

Anonymous said...

Tom, if your aim is "just ... to nail down specific facts," why don't you just respond to the facts that I have written about, rather than asking me to scamper off and address other issues that I have not yet focussed on?

Anonymous said...

Apparently there has been corroboration, after all, of the story of Osama bin Laden's stay at the American hospital at Dubai. See his comment here on my blog by Nicholas Levis (using the name "Jack Riddler").