David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe

David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe (/thread-5062.html)

David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe - Ed Jewett - 11-12-2010

David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe

Posted on December 10, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton

I am going to try to post this audio clip of David Swanson talking with Jim Fetzer that I found over at Swanson’s site. Now, for those of you who don’t know, I and another reader here were tossed out of David Swanson’s website, After Downing Street, back before the 2008 elections. Swanson and his assistant “Chip” didn’t like us because, among other things, we talked about 9/11. We also talked about Obama being a globalist, neither of these topics were very popular back in those days. I remember Swanson equating me questioning 9/11 to fearing that ‘little green men” were living under my bed. That was back in the days when Swanson also thought it was a “conspiracy theory” that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in order to justify taking us to war. Of course, he has written a book about that little “conspiracy theory” now, which is what he was talking to Fetzer about.
Personally I like the part of the interview where Swanson chastises Fetzer for assuming that he hasn’t “read all the books and seen all the videos” on the subject of 9/11 Truth. His basic argument is that yes, he has studied “all” the stuff out there and just come to a different conclusion about what happened on Sept. 11th 2001. Of course, Fetzer has to call him on that and he asks David what the melting point of structural steel is… and David has no idea.

“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” Albert Einstein

Now I don’t know how far into the study of 9/11 Truth that you can go without running across any one of dozens of scholarly articles that explain the structural aspect of what happened, but apparently David has found some way to read “all” the work out there and watch “all” the videos, and still he doesn’t know the most basic aspect of one of the biggest problems with the official story. For that matter, he apparently doesn’t even know the official story (which is that steel weakens at 1450 f and thus bowed and caused the collapse). Of course that is 1450 f INTERNAL temperature at the core of the steel, not just some flash over. By the way David… 2750 f is the temperature that structural steel (A-36) melts. Jet fuel burns at around 1600 f but as the official story goes, that all burned off in the first 15 minutes leaving nothing but open burn office fires (500-600 f).
Of course having read “all” the studies and seen “all” the videos, David must be aware of the tons of metal microspheres that the USGA, FEMA, NIST, and the RJ Lee report all found in the Ground Zero dust that had to have been created in temperatures that well exceeded 4500 degrees f. Of course, jet fuel and office fires could not create anything near those temperatures, but I am sure this is nothing new for Mr. Swanson. After all, he has seen all the evidence and read all the reports that we have, and just come to a different conclusion… right?
But in the interview, after being caught in an obvious lie (and not just an obvious lie, but one that he delivered with an arrogance and self-righteous indignation that would have made Cheney proud) Swanson goes on to basically state that the hijackers were certainly in the country (thank you Coleen “LIHOP” Rowley) ergo they certainly did it. And… they died. But the most important thing for Mr. Swanson is that the Bush administration Let It Happen On Purpose… and that of course is the most important thing for David Swanson.
Well, no the most important thing was to talk about his book.

“You invited me to talk for an hour about my book and we have been talking about nothing but your pet theories about an event in U.S. history. it’s not that my only interest is in selling books, but its a little misrepresentation of what my interview is going to be about.” David Swanson

After that little exchange, David goes on and on trying to explain how politicians project a sense of evil on the targeted population in order to dehumanize them, in order to make it easier for us to Shock and Awe them. Wow. Deep stuff there.

“We are being told lies and exaggerations about the people being demonized. In some cases we are being fed pure racism and religious bigotry about whole population of people who is absolutely false.” David Swanson

Really? In which cases are we being fed pure racism and religious bigotry about whole populations that are absolutely true? That would probably be a more interesting topic, but I guess David’s book doesn’t go anywhere near that one.
But then he goes on and just flat-out lies again…

“I think that if what you are arguing could prove something about something our government did, uh, then absolutely, it should be pursued. In fact I have done everything I, uh, in my power, uh, to promote and to demand, uh investigations, uh that would show anything about this incident, that we have been nothing but lied to.” David Swanson

If by saying he has done everything in his power to promote a new investigation he actually means he banned Truth advocates from his website and stated clearly that he didn’t want that kind of thing discussed on his website (then accused me personally of seeing “little green men” under my bed).. I mean, if that is what David Swanson means, well then I guess he is correct. Otherwise, just like the part where he claims to have read all the books and seen all the videos, he’s lying. Through his teeth.
A while ago, David Swanson was discussing an event he was going to put on and I simply asked him a question…

This sounds like a good idea to me and I mean I would like to ask in a serious way, if a speaker could be included in this event who could reasonably and respectfully address the evidence of the crimes of 9/11 at this forum.
… I respectfully ask this question and therefore would appreciate a response in a similar tone. Thank you. willyloman

This was David’s reply…

you would have to ask the organizers but if you succeeded, then i would not participate, just as i will not discuss the topic you will pursue in your next comment and cordially invite you to visit a 9-11 website, as there are several. David Swanson
… and heartily encourage 911ers to discuss 911 nonsense on sites dedicated to it, i’ve only blocked people who libeled, not people who expressed dumb or off-topic opinions, er, sorry, indisputable scientific facts. David Swanson

Does that sound like someone who has done everything in his power to promote new investigations?
“I am not sure proving the government would do anything like that is relevant in any way.” David Swanson
Let me see if I can shed a little light on this one for you David… Yes, it is relevent for a number of reasons. First, it’s a crime, and it used to be in this country that we would hold people accountable for crimes, so it would seem, on a basic bare-bones view of this, that it might be relevent to find out what really happened on 9/11, to put the criminals in prison… so they don’t do it again. Second, the family members of the people who died that day just MIGHT like to know the people that really did it, are punished. And lastly, if you think you are having a difficult time now convincing Bubba Joe Buck that we shouldn’t be spending a trillion dollars killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, just imagine how much easier that task would be if Bubba Joe Buck knew who really did 9/11. Hell, you might even say that the Global War on Terror might just… I don’t know… END… if that particular truth were well-known.

“The fact that our government lies over and over again in predictable patterns over the decades doesn’t tell me what happened in any particular case.” David Swanson

Yes David that is true. That is why when someone spends 5 years studying the available research and comes to an informed conclusion (unlike yours) you should probably take a minute or two to LISTEN to them rather than just talking down to them like you think they are yet another “nut job” or insulting them with terms like “little green men” otherwise you just end up sounding stupid and vain.
Actually if you know for a fact that the government lies about everything, yet for some reason you take them at their word on something as important and as physically impossible as what happened on 9/11 you’re not just stupid… you’re a fool, and you are a hell of a lot closer to believing in “little green men” than I ever was.

“That just doesn’t tell us anything about what happened that day beyond the things that some of us think are established beyond dispute. Including the warnings disregarded and ignored and the lack of any action taken to prevent these attacks… attacks by real people who for the most part have been identified and are dead and who were very inconviniantly almost all Saudi Arabian but who were depicted for the American public… beyond that, whether some additional steps were taken to simultaniously blow up the buildings or something else, I have no idea, and the indisputable facts not withstanding, they are very much disputed…. but we would all end up in the same place… that our government was to blame…” David Swanson

But David has made it as far as LIHOP (kinda) so I guess that’s progress of some sort.

Anyway, listen to the recording below. Or not.
. 9-11

David Swanson on a Rambling LIHOP Diatribe - Keith Millea - 11-12-2010

Those little green men are my friends.Funny little buggers. [Image: smilielol5.gif]