I think Palast is talking out of his backside here. Then again, what's new. I get the impression he is working for a government organisation using the BBC as a front. Just my opinion of course. Then again, how does one receive 500 emails from Karl Rove by mistake?
Why does he assert that he must be talking the truth simply because he works for the BBC? And to state there is no shred of evidence, real or implied, that the twin towers were destroyed by demolition is just plain bizarre.
For an investigative journalist, Palast is too well known. His cover is blown at every corner and yet he always manages to have the documents to prove what he says is the truth. Who's giving him this stuff? Strange he has uncovered nothing about 9/11 when it has hoax written all over it. Who's paying him to say this stuff?
Palast is just too well polished and behaves like a film star. Is he being directed by someone to stir things up?
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 410 Location: Sheffield
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Why does he assert that he must be talking the truth simply because he works for the BBC?
I'd have thought the opposite applied if you admitted working for the BBC !!!!! _________________ "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject:
James C wrote:
I think Palast is talking out of his backside here. Then again, what's new. I get the impression he is working for a government organisation using the BBC as a front. Just my opinion of course. Then again, how does one receive 500 emails from Karl Rove by mistake?
Why does he assert that he must be talking the truth simply because he works for the BBC? And to state there is no shred of evidence, real or implied, that the twin towers were destroyed by demolition is just plain bizarre.
For an investigative journalist, Palast is too well known. His cover is blown at every corner and yet he always manages to have the documents to prove what he says is the truth. Who's giving him this stuff? Strange he has uncovered nothing about 9/11 when it has hoax written all over it. Who's paying him to say this stuff?
Palast is just too well polished and behaves like a film star. Is he being directed by someone to stir things up?
Left gatekeeper certainly, but I dont see that as making Palast a fraud when the info he does present is of such high quality. Pragmatically, we know what would happen to palasts BBC career if he came out as a truther. whatever wee think about that, its still better to have a Greg Palast working with the resources of the BEEB than to not have a Greg Palast doing what he is able to do
In the video, Palast does say that he spent a lot of time examining the possibility that the towers/WTC7 were Cd'd
Well, there is legitimate grounds to question him, to bring forth the reasons he rejected the possibility _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I think Palast is talking out of his backside here. Then again, what's new. I get the impression he is working for a government organisation using the BBC as a front. Just my opinion of course. Then again, how does one receive 500 emails from Karl Rove by mistake?
Why does he assert that he must be talking the truth simply because he works for the BBC? And to state there is no shred of evidence, real or implied, that the twin towers were destroyed by demolition is just plain bizarre.
For an investigative journalist, Palast is too well known. His cover is blown at every corner and yet he always manages to have the documents to prove what he says is the truth. Who's giving him this stuff? Strange he has uncovered nothing about 9/11 when it has hoax written all over it. Who's paying him to say this stuff?
Palast is just too well polished and behaves like a film star. Is he being directed by someone to stir things up?
Left gatekeeper certainly, but I dont see that as making Palast a fraud when the info he does present is of such high quality. Pragmatically, we know what would happen to palasts BBC career if he came out as a truther. whatever wee think about that, its still better to have a Greg Palast working with the resources of the BEEB than to not have a Greg Palast doing what he is able to do
In the video, Palast does say that he spent a lot of time examining the possibility that the towers/WTC7 were Cd'd
Well, there is legitimate grounds to question him, to bring forth the reasons he rejected the possibility
Sorry, but his soapbox rants about Iraqi oil are just bs. Limiting Iraqi supply to raise the oil price, what hogwash! Palast discussing the supression of Iraqi oil output to 2 million barrels/day in order to achieve this proves he knows nothing about how oil markets behave nor how much oil is consumed everyday. At best, Iraq could produce 4 million barrels/day, but that was back in the late 80's. Since Gulf War I, the oil fields have been significantly damaged and most haven't produced anything for 15+ years during which time the price of oil dropped to one of its lowest prices ever to just under $10/barrel in 1999. The price being at $70/barrel now has little to do with Iraq since the market has few supply problems at present; output is still in excess of demand. No, the price is based on a mixture of issues ranging from Iraq, to Iran, to Chavez, to Nigeria, to Dafur, to China, to Russia and so on and on. To over simplify the issue by stating it's all about limiting Iraq's oil is plain silly especially when this amount totals 2% of world output and yet the price has increased by 700% since 1999. Basically, he's not looking at the big picture. Mmmm, poor journalism!
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:35 am Post subject:
We know from the JREF posters on this site that we need to use a collective bargepole with anyone that mentions Occam's Razor as Greg did.
It's so strange when you have ppl like Greg and Chomsky who can't see through this one... makes you wonder what's up.
Although one of the better academics talks about this issue - the fact the "intelligentsia" are having problems coming to terms with synthetic terrorism compared to Joe Shmo in the street...
PDS does some brilliant analysis once more in this recent video, the C.O.G. / coup-de-tat, angel is next etc are all elements of this situation the 9/11 community were slow on the uptake of. Essentially 9/11 was a failed plan to initiate full scale martial law. Most of the stuff we've seen since is a patch-up job - scrambled together since things didn't reach the pivotal point the MIC mafia gang wanted.
Richard Cheney, Continuity of Government, and 9/11
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:
some good anaylsis of what he said
Quote:
Listen very carefully.
It's not a question of belief, it's a question of whether I have any other information. And I have no... and... Look, I've gotta tell you, Lenny, I'm just kind of stuck with this one. I... I'm an investigative reporter. If I haven't investigated it I can't report on it. All... Then, then I'm just giving you my goofball opinion. I'm not an engineer, I'm not a physicist, I had an office in the World Trade center, but that's all I can tell you. I can tell you what I've found which is that they couldn't look... You know... To me, you know, I mean I see, like everyone else, you see the picture looks to me like planes hit the building, and... but.. You know, and my information... Umm... Doensn't comport with the idea that, that, of like a controlled demolition. We have looked at that, and I'm sorry if people are upset about this, but we spent a long time very, very seriously looking at that and... That just didn't happen.
So you can't report on what you don't investigate, and you're just stuck on the topic of the 9/11 inside job? You'd just be giving your goofball opinion? But you also spent a long time very, VERY seriously looking at it and you seem to be saying with authority "that just didn't happen". So which one is it Greggy? You're not an expert, you're just a goofball? Or you're the authoritative last word on this subject? This statement contains multiple self contradictions. Notice also the nervous stammering and the sly insertion of the "no planes" straw-man. "...you see the picture looks to me like planes hit the building..." Who said they didn't, Greg? All the main proponents of the controlled demolition argument say that the planes hit the buildings. And many of those proponents ARE in fact engineers and physicists.
http://www.ae911truth.org http://www.stj911.com http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Wow... By blood is * boiling right now. I was going to continue to transcribe that and further pick it apart, but now I see that there is no need. He descended directly into blatant, easily refuted lies and sophomoric name calling.
You know what though, we can definitely use this. Palast makes a complete ass and liar of himself here, and this can not only further tear down the last cobwebs of the official story, but it can also begin to expose the Left Gatekeepers for the slime that they are.
Take my transcription and my commentary to all the "liberal" blogs like Daily Kos. Feel free to add more comments of your own. We should jump on this, because the lies here are even more blatant than the Neocons', and SO easy to refute.
"I haven't seen any engineer..."
"You can posit other theories, but that we can't prove either..."
"Controlled demolition I could rule out. And... I'm sorry... it just rules out."
"It takes two years to wire a building..."
"There is ZERO EVIDENCE..."
"You can have ballroom dancers..."
Wow. Listen to him crumbling. I shouldn't have to say any more. This idiot just made a huge mistake. Bon appetit, Truthers. Tear this one up.
_________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject:
andyb wrote:
some good anaylsis of what he said
Quote:
Listen very carefully.
It's not a question of belief, it's a question of whether I have any other information. And I have no... and... Look, I've gotta tell you, Lenny, I'm just kind of stuck with this one. I... I'm an investigative reporter. If I haven't investigated it I can't report on it. All... Then, then I'm just giving you my goofball opinion. I'm not an engineer, I'm not a physicist, I had an office in the World Trade center, but that's all I can tell you. I can tell you what I've found which is that they couldn't look... You know... To me, you know, I mean I see, like everyone else, you see the picture looks to me like planes hit the building, and... but.. You know, and my information... Umm... Doensn't comport with the idea that, that, of like a controlled demolition. We have looked at that, and I'm sorry if people are upset about this, but we spent a long time very, very seriously looking at that and... That just didn't happen.
So you can't report on what you don't investigate, and you're just stuck on the topic of the 9/11 inside job? You'd just be giving your goofball opinion? But you also spent a long time very, VERY seriously looking at it and you seem to be saying with authority "that just didn't happen". So which one is it Greggy? You're not an expert, you're just a goofball? Or you're the authoritative last word on this subject? This statement contains multiple self contradictions. Notice also the nervous stammering and the sly insertion of the "no planes" straw-man. "...you see the picture looks to me like planes hit the building..." Who said they didn't, Greg? All the main proponents of the controlled demolition argument say that the planes hit the buildings. And many of those proponents ARE in fact engineers and physicists.
http://www.ae911truth.org http://www.stj911.com http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Wow... By blood is * boiling right now. I was going to continue to transcribe that and further pick it apart, but now I see that there is no need. He descended directly into blatant, easily refuted lies and sophomoric name calling.
You know what though, we can definitely use this. Palast makes a complete ass and liar of himself here, and this can not only further tear down the last cobwebs of the official story, but it can also begin to expose the Left Gatekeepers for the slime that they are.
Take my transcription and my commentary to all the "liberal" blogs like Daily Kos. Feel free to add more comments of your own. We should jump on this, because the lies here are even more blatant than the Neocons', and SO easy to refute.
"I haven't seen any engineer..."
"You can posit other theories, but that we can't prove either..."
"Controlled demolition I could rule out. And... I'm sorry... it just rules out."
"It takes two years to wire a building..."
"There is ZERO EVIDENCE..."
"You can have ballroom dancers..."
Wow. Listen to him crumbling. I shouldn't have to say any more. This idiot just made a huge mistake. Bon appetit, Truthers. Tear this one up.
OK then Andy, looks good. In true anarcho campaigner style, you make the "flyers" and I'll distribute them (meaning lets write up a "Palast Pwnd" style article and get it spread around) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
Is the internet no 11 or a wild card/Trojan Horse come back to bite them? _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:
Using your Paradiogm for a moment Rodin, just becuase "they" planned to have the interent as part of "Stage 11" doesnt mean its going to stay part of "stage 11". In my paradigm, I try never to mistake influence for control.
At the same time, it occurs to me that the best possible controlled opposition is someone who doesnt even realise they are controlled opposition: assuming its possible to do anything else but guess as to whether anyone is controlled opposition
What about yourself? Maybe "they" have agents going around suggesting everyone else is controlled opposition just to make it appear that "they" have lots of agent assets when really, "they" are just playing on our fears to make us distrust each other whenever we do not completely agree, in true "Wizard of Oz Small Man behind the curtain" style. I certainly don't bother to believe that: but that in itself doesnt prove it isnt true
With Palast, I dont see a compelling argument to believe he is anyone else but Greg Palast. his expopsure of Neocon voting fraud is certainly well worth having, and whatever platform people stand on, theres certainly stuff people will always not touch. We are standing on a 9/11 Truth Platform. Does that mean we are happy to stand on a 9/11 Truth/Lizardmen platform? of course not (even if their is evidence supporting "lizardmen").
So I don't as such see a need to have Greg Palast stand on a 9/11 truth platform. The fact that Palast is being quizzed on his 9/11 Truth views shows that 9/11 truth is growing just fine without him. but I would like to see clarification on exactly what Palast has looked at to dismiss CD. Even if Palast is perfectly legit and has all the integrity he apparently posseses, its still a matter of relevant public interest if he has dismissed 9/11 Truth by doing a sloppy research job _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
I suspect there is a very good chance it was sneaked past them. And I don't think they quite know what to do with it. As I said, they can read our emails and profile us, but with exponential growth of information can they stop the spread of incovenient truth?
I am saying consistently that blaming neocons is controlled oppositional gatekeeping. And my observations are, i think consistent, if a little repetitive. But then, as we know, to many '911' is old hat and boring.
Well not to me.
They are NOT all-powerful. They have tremendous weaknessess. They cannot feel but greed, lust, contempt for fellow wo/man. And our strength is growing, not just in numbers, but in sentience. All this puzzling WTF they are up to and WTF they are is very good for the neurons. Plus we are in the right and fighting for our very survival. Very motivated, once we realise what is at stake. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject:
Spunds good JW. Come down for a Sunday at Speakers Corner or let me know your address and you can come up on Monday for our demo _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Pallast like many people in the media draws the line in the sand about 911.
His body language as is the case with george galloway shows they are lying.
But as JW correctly stated greg pallast has exposed the links between bush family and the bin laden family and also the voting frauds.
So this is the gameplan, pallst knows if he comes out for 911 truth he will be off the bbc within a flash
galloway knows that if he comes out he will be off the air too.
Rosie O'Donnell is a good example of this.
The media generally tends not to have a problem to be left leaning but questioning the satus quo is taboo.
I have the feeling that many reporters and politicians are fully versed with 911 truth, but are keeping their heads down,
This is why WE have to shout loudly and make 911 a respectable and mainstream issue with more public awareness. _________________
Pallast like many people in the media draws the line in the sand about 911.
His body language as is the case with george galloway shows they are lying.
But as JW correctly stated greg pallast has exposed the links between bush family and the bin laden family and also the voting frauds.
So this is the gameplan, pallst knows if he comes out for 911 truth he will be off the bbc within a flash
galloway knows that if he comes out he will be off the air too.
Rosie O'Donnell is a good example of this.
The media generally tends not to have a problem to be left leaning but questioning the satus quo is taboo.
I have the feeling that many reporters and politicians are fully versed with 911 truth, but are keeping their heads down,
This is why WE have to shout loudly and make 911 a respectable and mainstream issue with more public awareness.
So drawing a line that hides the truth is acceptable behaviour? Pragmatic I suppose. Political.
No. Gatekeeping. They are determined NOT to let 911 truth go MSM - yet. I remember the guy who reviews movies pm on 5-live saying that 911 as an inside job was a lunatic idea. OTT dismissive he was - like Monbiot - and for that matter Palast. Of course, reviewing Hollywood movies you can't really expect anyone other than a shill...
When the revolution finally comes NO 911-denier should get a free pass. Guilty of covering up a crime they were. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
[ OTT dismissive he was - like Monbiot - and for that matter Palast.
yes they seem to go out of their way to put the boot in.
Pallast was mockingly brutal. I have phoned George Galloway and he basically cuts down any dissent in a pisstaking bullying manner.
Monbiot in his article was particularly condescending.
i would not expect this level of insult purely if they disagreed with it. They go out of the way to prove the are against it by the OTT comments. _________________
Didn’t Palast say that he didn’t even know about building seven? That kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it when it comes to the degree for which he actually delved in to the subject?
After all, building seven represents the strongest case for controlled demolition. How much time could he have really spent looking in to it if he didn’t even know about seven? I mean really….
Richard Gage talked about how the architects and engineers that he has presented to were almost all for the official story until after they saw his work and then all changed their minds. A lot of that hinges upon their witnessing of the anomalies of building seven.
Of course Palast should know better that to go shooting off his mouth like this because many of his own claims have been labeled as being conspiracy theories by the establishment media.
Greg Palast displays his complete ignorance on 911 truth. When the interviewer asked about WTC7, stating that it was not hit by any planes, Greg Palast replied: "I saw the planes hitting the buildings!" - and then say "we've looked at this, there's nothing to it."
Like we're supposed to take his word for it? If he doesn't even know what WTC7 is, we can't trust this guy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
