Baxter - Contamination Accident or Incident ??

[ELVIS]

Helen Branswell
The Canadian Press

March 5, 2009 (http://www.infowars.com/baxter-product-contained-live-bird-flu-virus/)

The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses.

http://www.infowars.com/images/avian.jpg
The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.

And an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria.

“At this juncture we are confident in saying that public health and occupational risk is minimal at present,” medical officer Roberta Andraghetti said from Copenhagen, Denmark.

“But what remains unanswered are the circumstances surrounding the incident in the Baxter facility in Orth-Donau.”

The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.

Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a “serious error” on Baxter’s part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.

On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.

“It was live,” Christopher Bona said in an email.

The contaminated product, which Baxter calls “experimental virus material,” was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine — including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly — at a facility in the Czech Republic.

People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.

Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.

While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.

That mixing process, called reassortment, is one of two ways pandemic viruses are created.

There is no suggestion that happened because of this accident, however.

“We have no evidence of any reassortment, that any reassortment may have occurred,” said Andraghetti.

“And we have no evidence of any increased transmissibility of the viruses that were involved in the experiment with the ferrets in the Czech Republic.”

Baxter hasn’t shed much light — at least not publicly — on how the accident happened. Earlier this week Bona called the mistake the result of a combination of “just the process itself, (and) technical and human error in this procedure.”

He said he couldn’t reveal more information because it would give away proprietary information about Baxter’s production process.

Andraghetti said Friday the four investigating governments are co-operating closely with the WHO and the European Centre for Disease Control in Stockholm, Sweden.

“We are in very close contact with Austrian authorities to understand what the circumstances of the incident in their laboratory were,” she said.

“And the reason for us wishing to know what has happened is to prevent similar events in the future and to share lessons that can be learned from this event with others to prevent similar events. … This is very important.”


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

I can't believe not one of you took this article seriously, or maybe not even read any of it...

Read this article and swish it around your pee-brains...

[LoungeMachine]

Never even saw it, E.

Hard to take something you never read seriously.....

Frightening to say the least.

Still don't understand why they're injecting ferrets with the bird flu virus.

But if this isn't a good reason for strong governmental regulations and oversight, I'm not sure what is.

One of the best things any government can do for their people, is protect them from careless greedheads. And I smell greed in this story.

:gulp:

[Kristy]

“And we have no evidence of any increased transmissibility of the viruses that were involved in the experiment with the ferrets in the Czech Republic.”

Oh well that pretty much settles it then. We can all sleep easier at night.

[Andy Taylor]

This is from Infowars.com (which I sometimes read) and depending on where they took it from I might take it seriously. Here the source is the Toronto Sun, which I suppose is like the British paper? I do think this sounds true, no one's going manufacture all those quotes and information out of thin air. I'm just saying because I'm used to seeing the reaction to anything from an Alex Jones site.

[FORD]

The BCE bragged about all the new friends they made in the former Communist Eastern European countries. I wonder if some of those friends had biological weapons labs?

[ELVIS]

Yes they have them, but the main ones are our major pharmacutical companies...

[swage33]

The BCE bragged about all the new friends they made in the former Communist Eastern European countries. I wonder if some of those friends had biological weapons labs?

Jesus, Ford, could you tie the BCE into granny's bread not rising?

[FORD]

Jesus, Ford, could you tie the BCE into granny's bread not rising?

If the yeast in that bread came from a Monsanto genetically mutated crop, probably.

Or any of the pharmaceutical companies the BCE is tied to, both in the US and otherwise. Don't forget that most of the first Chimpministration cabinet in 2001 were tied to big pharma, or that Poppy Bush remains on the board of Eli Lilly pharmaceuticals, while Rummy was the CEO of Searle pharmaceuticals (now owned by Monsanto) in between his stints selling weapons for the BCE. In fact, while Rummy was running Searle, they got creative in how to sell a chemical toxin they were unable to market as a nerve agent. Somebody accidentally found out the substance was sweet, so instead they rebranded it as an artificial sweetener. That chemical was called Aspartame. Rummy signed the patent at Searle which allowed it to be sold, as a food additive & sweetener under the brand name "Nutra Sweet".

[ELVIS]

Of course he could...

But now it's the OCE...


:elvis:

[FORD]

When you can provide evidence that Obama's grandfather financed a genocidal madman, or that his father sells heroin and weapons, THEN you can talk to me about the "OCE".

[ELVIS]

You make it sound like Prescott Bush was in on a big secret plan for Hitler to mow down Europe...

There were many who financed the National Socalist Party in Germany, or "bankrolled Hitler" as you usually say Prescott did, and seemingly alone...

Were not that dumb...


:elvis:

[Andy Taylor]

Holy shit, Rumsfeld deserves the full Gitmo treatment scum that he is. And may I say, WMD!!!!1111?

Yes, now it's the OCE.

[ELVIS]

I can provide evidence of Obama's Fathers ties to Socialism...

Problems With Our Socialism: A Paper By Barack H. Obama Sr.

And Obama's connection to his father...

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)

And...

A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama's father and his father's convictions which Obama withholds from his readers. A first hint comes from authors E. S. Atieno Odhiambo and David William Cohen in their book The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio U. Press, 2004). On page 182 of their book they describe how Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga, in a paper Barack Obama's father wrote for the East Africa Journal. As Odhiambo and Cohen write, "The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough."

And look what else I found there, your Soviet style communist avatar...

http://www.wvwnews.net/images/teaser/obama_prog.jpg


Read more... (http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5991)


:elvis:

[FORD]

**hic**:bottle:

[FORD]

Obama barely knew his father. Hardly a valid comparison to the direct line of political succession from Prescott to Poppy to Chimpy.

[ELVIS]

Obama barely knew his father.

That doesn't mean he didn't study his father and his father's education in economics from Harvard...

[Nickdfresh]

This is from Infowars.com (which I sometimes read) and depending on where they took it from I might take it seriously. Here the source is the Toronto Sun, which I suppose is like the British paper? I do think this sounds true, no one's going manufacture all those quotes and information out of thin air. I'm just saying because I'm used to seeing the reaction to anything from an Alex Jones site.

My reaction is that Alex Jones is a money-changing whore, 911-profiteer...

He can fuck himself and die any day of the week...

[FORD]

By the way, ELVIS.... what's up with the link to the "kinder gentler" white supremacist group ("European Americans United")?? :confused12:

[Andy Taylor]

My reaction is that Alex Jones is a money-changing whore, 911-profiteer...

He can fuck himself and die any day of the week...


He's not just about 9/11 but about anything to do with the NWO. I doubt he makes big bucks - he would've tried to get all his movies off youtube/google or stop ebay sellers from selling copies for a dollar. Now Michael Moore I have always felt was after money, I never took him seriously.

[Nickdfresh]

He's not just about 9/11 but about anything to do with the NWO. I doubt he makes big bucks - he would've tried to get all his movies off youtube/google or stop ebay sellers from selling copies for a dollar. Now Michael Moore I have always felt was after money, I never took him seriously.

Jones makes a shit load of money off his "anti-guber'ment" shtick. He might as well shit on the graves of 911 victims with his willful misinformation bullshit. And was the Moore comment supposed to hurt me? Oooohhhh!!!!

The difference is that Moore makes a valid point and can back up his assertions and opinions with a modicum of fact.

If you have specific complaints about Moore, go ahead. But can anyone deny his central "Fahrenheit 911" assertion that the Saudis got off fucking easy? Feel free to compare and contrast between the two with actual examples...

[Andy Taylor]

Whoa! I didn't know you liked Moore's stuff that much. No, I didn't mean it to offend I was comparing two people who do the same thing.

It's not Moore's findings that I'm against (I haven't seen a complete doc) but I felt he was simply in the documentary business and that's it. The anti-Bush sentiment was high then and he took advantage of it. He's even got a crooked look to his face just like Blair, even when he speaks of the tragedy.


http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0439-1/%7BF455D79B-1DD5-4753-9842-E2892D189FF3%7DImg100.jpg

Yeah, he sure looks sincere.

I also don't see how Moore should be accurate and Alex Jones isn't. His accent and Texan background has no relevance. Unlike most people he is atleast non-partisan and in the US he could have made more money by appealing to the right and red necks instead of bashing Bush.

And unless you want to believe Jones is part of the elite he's the only one who made it into the Bohemian Grove where the leaders conduct their strange rituals.

[Nickdfresh]

Whoa! I didn't know you liked Moore's stuff that much. No, I didn't mean it to offend I was comparing two people who do the same thing.

I don't. I've seen F911 once...

But the "same thing?" Are you really that fucking logically impaired?

Moore raises genuine questions regarding the Bush Admin's handling of 9/11 both before and after and Jones says they orchestrated it. Hardly the same fucking thing!!!!


It's not Moore's findings that I'm against (I haven't seen a complete doc) but I felt he was simply in the documentary business and that's it. The anti-Bush sentiment was high then and he took advantage of it. He's even got a crooked look to his face just like Blair, even when he speaks of the tragedy.


Oh, so you've never seen his work but yet have so many opinions on it? Really?


http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/0439-1/%7BF455D79B-1DD5-4753-9842-E2892D189FF3%7DImg100.jpg

Yeah, he sure looks sincere.

I also don't see how Moore should be accurate and Alex Jones isn't.

How the fuck would you know? You've never even watched his documentary and have no idea what it actually says. It's on YouTube, so you have no excuse for your ignorance..


His accent and Texan background has no relevance. Unlike most people he is atleast non-partisan and in the US he could have made more money by appealing to the right and red necks instead of bashing Bush.

And unless you want to believe Jones is part of the elite he's the only one who made it into the Bohemian Grove where the leaders conduct their strange rituals.


Um. Jones is an asshole that peddles to the "Inside Job" conspiracy crowd niche. I highly doubt he even believes in half of the shit he airs...

Try watching "F911," then compare to Jones' shows. Then come back to us with an opinion that doesn't resemble something of a scowling, arrogant cluster-fuck. 'Kay?

If Moore made money, well fucking good for him! Cheney made money by getting US troops fucking killed in Iraq.

[Andy Taylor]

I've heard parts of what he talks about in his documentary. It's nothing very unexpected.Different conclusions, but they are both making documentaries that are critical of the US in the eyes of many. So it's ok for Moore to make money off it but not Cheney, yeah that makes sense. As for arrogance I see your posts aren't entirely lacking in it. Yes, all the conspiracy theorists are whackos... keep watching your favourite choice of mainstream media.

[FORD]

I'm not opposed to Alex Jones, and I believe he's right about many things. Where Alex goes wrong is that he's on the extreme right wing ditch of scary Libertarianism, and pretty much believes that ALL government is an evil NWO plot. Even if Ron Paul had been somehow elected, Alex Jones probably would have proclaimed him the new zombie overlord the next day.

Michael Moore believes in America the way it should be. The way it was, for the most part before 1980. And being from Flint Michigan, he had a personal stake in the economic devastation long before most of us did.

Moore's work is more anti-corporatism than anti-government. Problem is that over the last 28 years, the corporations have become the government. :(

[Nickdfresh]

I've heard parts of what he talks about in his documentary. It's nothing very unexpected.

Of course. The questions raised were academic...


Different conclusions, but they are both making documentaries that are critical of the US in the eyes of many.

Um, wrong. One was a conspiracy fantasist argument and the other was pretty solidly rooted in news and gov't reporting...


So it's ok for Moore to make money off it but not Cheney, yeah that makes sense. As for arrogance I see your posts aren't entirely lacking in it.

Oh, okay. So, you're apologizing for Cheney getting US and Iraqi people killed for profit for his former company Hallifucker, but somehow Moore is evil for making a film questioning it?

This is the widely discredited "hypocrite argument" BTW...


Yes, all the conspiracy theorists are whackos... keep watching your favourite choice of mainstream media.

Yeah, because science is a conspiracy, man!!!

Let's get that alternative media shit, man! Because if it is on the internet, it must be true!!!

Who needs things like facts, the scientific method, or basic logic?

[Andy Taylor]

Of course. The questions raised were academic...

And so were the ones on the other side.


Um, wrong. One was a conspiracy fantasist argument and the other was pretty solidly rooted in news and gov't reporting...

Govt reporting? The same govt Moore and yourself are critical of? The media has it's ties with the military and who knows who else.


Oh, okay. So, you're apologizing for Cheney getting US and Iraqi people killed for profit for his former company Hallifucker, but somehow Moore is evil for making a film questioning it? This is the widely discredited "hypocrite argument" BTW...

No, I think both are condemnable, Cheney far more than Moore.



Yeah, because science is a conspiracy, man!!!

Let's get that alternative media shit, man! Because if it is on the internet, it must be true!!!

Who needs things like facts, the scientific method, or basic logic?


This is where you go wrong, because this 'science' that you swear by can be faulty in the official theory. Just because Snopes (oh that's an accurate website) says so it doesn't mean it's accurate.

Fact is, there is nothing conclusive scientifically on the alternative side as to how the buildings went down. AND the same applies for the official version. Is there enough shady evidence of a coverup and a motive for it? Plenty! And till the media gets into any of this, it is totally unreliable. As if Adolf wouldn't have controlled the media if he could have in his day. We're talking about a country where former govts have had similar plans with Northwoods, used nukes to make a point on superiority and manufactures wars in Vietnam, Iraq and a near miss in Iran. With zero regard for even American life (this thread has news of Rumsfeld endangering MORE American life), so let's not doubt they would do this.

[Andy Taylor]

I'm not opposed to Alex Jones, and I believe he's right about many things. Where Alex goes wrong is that he's on the extreme right wing ditch of scary Libertarianism, and pretty much believes that ALL government is an evil NWO plot. Even if Ron Paul had been somehow elected, Alex Jones probably would have proclaimed him the new zombie overlord the next day.

Definitely he takes it too far looking for an angle, it's a weakness people have when trying to prove a point. Besides he's hardly from a professional media background. The thing though is more than half the stuff on infowars is linked to other places, a lot of leftist sites and a lot of mainstream news.

People have been able to say for maybe decades that so and so isn't true, it's whacko. But we went from not acknowledging the existence of the Bilders to the BBC uncovering that they planned the EU in the 50s. Kissinger was around recently (I posted this here) talking about further integration in Asia with China at its head.

Maybe it's whacko, but... FT is on the 'conspiracy' bandwagon too. As are a few heads of nations.

FT.com / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - And now for a world government (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=&nclick_check=1)

[Andy Taylor]

Once you accept that real madman did make it into power and maybe are still there somewhere, the unofficial theories are the ones that makes more sense.


Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have come alarmingly true

John Pilger

16 Dec 2002

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.

The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.

Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution.

You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

With thanks to Norm Dixon and Chris Floyd

[Nickdfresh]

And so were the ones on the other side.

Which "ones?" You wouldn't know since you never bothered to look...



Govt reporting? The same govt Moore and yourself are critical of? The media has it's ties with the military and who knows who else.

Um, the "govt" isn't some giant monolithic omnipotent power.

If you actually bother to read the "911 Report," you'll see that. They actually disclosed the previously secret CIA "Rendition" program in it...


No, I think both are condemnable, Cheney far more than Moore.

But you think Moore is "condemnable" based on a film you haven't bothered to watch (for free on YouTube).

Thanks for not providing any "specifics" I asked for. Maybe you can get around to watching when you're done masturbating to the "Hungry Like a Wolf" video...:umm:



This is where you go wrong, because this 'science' that you swear by can be faulty in the official theory. Just because Snopes (oh that's an accurate website) says so it doesn't mean it's accurate.

No, not "Snopes." Actual structural engineers and scientists on that bastion of conservatism, PBS.ORG. And as far as Snopes, they also debunk populist right wing fantasies as well...


Fact is, there is nothing conclusive scientifically on the alternative side as to how the buildings went down. AND the same applies for the official version. Is there enough shady evidence of a coverup and a motive for it? Plenty! And till the media gets into any of this, it is totally unreliable. As if Adolf wouldn't have controlled the media if he could have in his day. We're talking about a country where former govts have had similar plans with Northwoods, used nukes to make a point on superiority and manufactures wars in Vietnam, Iraq and a near miss in Iran. With zero regard for even American life (this thread has news of Rumsfeld endangering MORE American life), so let's not doubt they would do this.

Um, the "fact" is that the "inside job" crowd are fundamentally "anti-scientific method" (not my words) because they ASSUME a conclusion that something fishy must of happened, THEN use ever morphing arguments based on inherent preexisting bias to "prove" their preexisting conclusions rather than letting the evidence lead them to a conclusion. And most of the inside job sites purporting to be scientific and engineering based are shown to be completely disingenuous in their claims...

Northwoods? Fucking please! 2+2=5

That argument is the same pseudo-logic that Bush used to rationalize the second Gulf War!

[Combat Ready]

Problem is that over the last 28 years, the corporations have become the government. :(

Some would argue that it's the other way around. If not...We're getting there.

[Kristy]

My reaction is that Alex Jones is a money-changing whore, 911-profiteer...


Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING that happens within the confines of the US Government turns out to be some haphazard Illuminati/Globalist conspiracy according to Jones. In the only time I could stomach his deplorable radio show he devoted an hour to the whys and hows of the American public being "desensitized" to movies about the Holocaust. We seem to love them says Jones only because the Globalist are somehow programming us (via the cinema) to voluntarily walk into the "secret gas cambers" currently being built in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.

You're right, he's no different than Coulter (and don't get me started on her) when it comes to making a dollar off someone's suffering as long as he can throw words like "conspiracy" and "plot" about. Wearing his shitty "Investigate" t-shirt days after 9/11 whoring himself to any camera or radio show that gave him 5 minutes of air time was insulting. He's another self-imposed pseudo journalist hiding in a bunker only to come out with a videocam in order to satisfy his tin foil hat-wearing audience augmenting his bank account in the process. Listen to him on Coast-To-Coast some night of the most inane ramblings of his warped mind and see if he isn't pimping some book or a movie within 15 minutes of the interview.

[Andy Taylor]

Which "ones?" You wouldn't know since you never bothered to look...

We're talking 9/11 not Moore, so yes here I did go through the official and alt theories some time back.




Um, the "govt" isn't some giant monolithic omnipotent power.

If you actually bother to read the "911 Report," you'll see that. They actually disclosed the previously secret CIA "Rendition" program in it...

Even people outside the Jones crowd called it a whitewash.



But you think Moore is "condemnable" based on a film you haven't bothered to watch (for free on YouTube).

Thanks for not providing any "specifics" I asked for.


What's this about? I didn't say anything about disagreeing with the whole outcome of his documentary. I just questioned his motivation. I don't really care about Moore, it's my impression of him that he's insincere. Just like you say the same of Jones. Moore's doc doesn't interest me because he doesn't address the things that need to be.



No, not "Snopes." Actual structural engineers and scientists on that bastion of conservatism, PBS.ORG. And as far as Snopes, they also debunk populist right wing fantasies as well...

erm... this is not right or left wing, actually they are more left leaning views if anything.



Um, the "fact" is that the "inside job" crowd are fundamentally "anti-scientific method" (not my words) because they ASSUME a conclusion that something fishy must of happened, THEN use ever morphing arguments based on inherent preexisting bias to "prove" their preexisting conclusions rather than letting the evidence lead them to a conclusion. And most of the inside job sites purporting to be scientific and engineering based are shown to be completely disingenuous in their claims...

Northwoods? Fucking please! 2+2=5

That argument is the same pseudo-logic that Bush used to rationalize the second Gulf War!


Nope, it's not simply out of a conclusion, but there's plenty of evidence from all kinds of sources, from the firemen to Norad.

[Nickdfresh]

We're talking 9/11 not Moore, so yes here I did go through the official and alt theories some time back.


You brought up Moore, not me. And there are several threads and my beliefs are plainly stated and hardly the "official version."


Even people outside the Jones crowd called it a whitewash.

I agree that it was to an extent. however, if you "deconstruct" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) it, the document has much value...



What's this about? I didn't say anything about disagreeing with the whole outcome of his documentary. I just questioned his motivation. I don't really care about Moore, it's my impression of him that he's insincere. Just like you say the same of Jones. Moore's doc doesn't interest me because he doesn't address the things that need to be.



What it is about is your failure to actually view something you have an opinion on...


erm... this is not right or left wing, actually they are more left leaning views if anything.


I'd say they're squarely moderate/middle of the road...


Nope, it's not simply out of a conclusion, but there's plenty of evidence from all kinds of sources, from the firemen to Norad.

Um, you're confusing speculation with evidence.

[Andy Taylor]

Ofcourse the report has much value. But there's evidence on both sides (which are ignored) and there are so many holes in the official theory. We're so far from the event now I don't even see a point in me re-examining all the details. I still might do it someday but it's both a pain and it's not going to convince everyone anyway. Meaning the purpose is a bit futile, the same reason why I don't care to find out more about Moore, just like you think it's futile to consider the merits of Duran.

Here's another example of how the mainstream media is catching up with Jones and the crazies. The NYT ran an article on how, yes, the Bush govt was a dicatorship after all, repealing posse comitatus and so forth.

I'm curious, how do you treat those two articles I posted above? They're completely mainstream and they echo some of Jones' major points. No one would admit it but their main reason for rejecting the alt media evidence is that they don't want to believe people could do such a thing, it's not really about the facts. These people, Cheney, Rumsfeld have shown the mad thinking of a dictator, they do believe in ideas of perpetual war, which is in line with fascist thinking. And they do sacrifice 'their own' in fake wars. Why would 3000 plus a few more matter to people who think like they do?

[Nitro Express]

One huge problem we have in the US is the citizenship don't know their rights. I'm shocked at how many kids don't even know what the First Amendment is. We need to know our rights and teach them to our children. Then we as a public need to hold our politicians accountable to those rights.

If we don't give a shit anymore, then those rights dissapear when someone else gets the interest of the politicians. People get the govt. they deserve.

[Andy Taylor]

People are tuned into the media expecting a newscaster to tell them their rights have disappeared. Civilization is clearly proving to be the most pointless exercise mankind set out upon. The Bilders have perhaps wisely realised this and decided to slowly take us back to serfdom. Maybe I should get on their side and apply for a position higher up in their scheme of things.

[ELVIS]

Even if Ron Paul had been somehow elected, Alex Jones probably would have proclaimed him the new zombie overlord the next day.




That's bullshit!


:elvis:

[Andy Taylor]

I think Jones is fairly consistent. He's always bashed Bush and Obama when he was a candidate and I think he's always backed Paul.

[Nickdfresh]

I think Jones is fairly consistent...

A consistent shithead...