Well I'll admit to be confused as to why Bob, I mean Rick, changed his name.

But other than that I'm actually not trying to provoke him. I'm trying to correct what he says. I really am.

As for the standard theory being a Republican Party myth...that's just silly. I'd be willing to bet, for example, that if you tallied up the votes from the last election of the team at Purdue who did the simulation verifying the standard theory, that the Democrats would win by an even larger percentile margin.

And by the way, my position on this question is not middling in either sense of the term. I am certainly not taking a middle position, I am strongly siding with the standard theory. And the science I cite is not mediocre, it is rather strong.

galanter wrote:Well I'll admit to be confused as to why Bob, I mean Rick, changed his name.

All the world is the stage. Bob was triumphantly declaring that he didn't need the "performance art", because the Truth had Saved all the people that it was going to Save.

But other than that I'm actually not trying to provoke him. I'm trying to correct what he says. I really am.

Naw brah, bullshit.

As for the standard theory being a Republican Party myth...that's just silly. I'd be willing to bet, for example, that if you tallied up the votes from the last election of the team at Purdue who did the simulation verifying the standard theory, that the Democrats would win by an even larger percentile margin.

I was talking about 9-11 as a whole. The motives, involvements, means, ends, effects and significance. The whole bunch, not just the kaboom. The Republican party's flagship explanation of the event is perhaps more tied to one particular set of politicians that perhaps any comparible political opinion you might want to mention.

It was very telling in the UK, when Tony Blair spoke of a "special relationship" with the USA, the overwhelming feeling amoungst the left here was that, yes, we do have a "special relationship" with the USA but Blair was compromising that with a "special relationship" with the Republican party and willfully flying in the face of American popular opinion.

Rick Reuben wrote:the greatest living political theorist webster g. tarpley"

Ha! Ha!

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, and stumbling towards a first edition of Ulysses.

galanter wrote:And by the way, my position on this question is not middling in either sense of the term. I am certainly not taking a middle position, I am strongly siding with the standard theory. And the science I cite is not mediocre, it is rather strong.

Did I say middling? I must have meant piddling.

I'd prefer pudding...but I'm on a diet.

Rick Reuben wrote:The Power of Nightmares has you in its grip.

Just too funny...

Rick Reuben wrote:The Power of Nightmares

Sounds emo.

unarmedman wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:The Power of Nightmares

Sounds emo.

Bury if targetted by Clocker Bob.

Ah back to ducking the issue, huh coward? Don't you have any pride?

Rick Reuben wrote:

ue wrote:Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?

That's a common lie/ error, often made by dopes like you.

All the papers published here are available for peer review, and many have been peer reviewed:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Ok, Cock Knocker Bob. Now we are getting somewhere. I mean, the Journal of 911 studies. Sounds so official. Hey, look who the editor is! It's none other than Steven Jones.

Who peer reviewed these articles Tom? Don't be afraid to name names. What were their qualifications? Feel free to include their degrees and areas of specialty.

Flaneur wrote:I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.

Nowhere to hide Tom.